THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY

COMMENTARY

AN EXPOSITION OF
I CORINTHIANS
by Charles Hodge

B o o k s Fo r Th e A g e s
AGES Software • Albany, OR USA
Version 2.0 © 1996, 1997
 2

HYPERTEXT T ABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
1. Corinth.
2. Paul’s Labors In Corinth.
3. State Of The Church In Corinth.
4. Date. — Contents Of The Epistle.
5. Importance Of This Epistle.
The Commentary
Chapter I
Chapter II
Chapter III
Chapter IV
Chapter V
Chapter VI
Chapter VII
Chapter VIII
Chapter IX
Chapter X
Chapter XI
Chapter XII
Chapter XIII
Chapter XIV
Chapter XV
Chapter XVI
Footnotes
Publishers Notes
 3

An Exposition of

1st CORINTHIANS

by

CHARLES HODGE
(no date)

SAGE Software
Albany, Oregon
© 1996
 4

INTRODUCTION

1. CORINTH.

The Grecian Peloponnesus is connected with the continent by an isthmus

from four to six miles wide. On this isthmus stood the city of Corinth. A
rocky eminence, called the Acrocorinthus, rises from the plain almost
perpendicularly, to the height of two thousand feet above the level of the
sea, and is sufficiently broad at the summit for a town of considerable size.
From the top of this abrupt hill the eye reaches towards the east over the
expanse of the Aegean Sea, with its numerous islands; and westward,
towards the Ionian Sea, a prospect scarcely less inviting was presented.
Looking towards the north, the eye rests on the mountains of Attica on the
one hand, and northeastern Greece on the other; the Acropolis of Athens
being clearly visible at a distance of forty-five miles. As early as the days
of Homer, Corinth was an important city. Its position made it, in a
military point of view, the key of the Peloponnesus; and its command of a
port on two seas made it the center of commerce between Asia and
Europe. The supremacy enjoyed by one Grecian State after another, had at
last fallen to the lot of Corinth. It became the chief city of Greece, not only
in authority, but in wealth, magnificence, literature, the arts, and in luxury.
It was characteristic of the place, that while the temple of Minena crowned
the Acropolis of Athens, the Acrocorinthus was the site of the temple of
Venus. Of all the cities of the ancient world it was most notorious for
licentiousness. It was entirely destroyed by the Roman consul Mummius,
120 years B.C., its inhabitants were dispersed, and the conqueror carried
with him to Rome the richest spoils that ever graced the triumph of a
Roman general. For a century after this event it lay in ruins, serving only
as a quarry whence the Roman patricians gathered marble for their palaces.
Julius Caesar, recognizing the military and commercial importance of the
position, determined to rebuild it, and for that purpose sent thither a
colony consisting principally of freed men. This accounts for the
predominance of Latin names which we meet with in connection with the
 5
Christians of this city. Erastus, Phoebe, and Sosthenes are Greek names;
but Gaius, Quintus, Fortunatus, Crispus, Justus, Achaicus, are of Roman
origin. This colony, however, was little more than the nucleus of the new
city. Merchants flocked thither from all parts of Greece; Jews also were
attracted by the facilities of commerce; wealth, art, literature, and luxury
revived. The Isthmian games were again celebrated under the presidency of
the city. It was made the capital of Achaia, which as a Roman province,
included the greater part of Greece. Under the fostering care of Augustus,
Corinth regained much of its ancient splendor, and during the century
which had nearly elapsed since its restoration, before it was visited by the
Apostle Paul, it had reached a pre-eminence which made it the glory of
Greece. It was at this time under the rule of the Proconsul Gallio, the
brother of Seneca, — a man distinguished for integrity and mildness. His
brother says of him: Nemo enim mortalium uni tam dulcis est, quam hic
omnibus. His refusal to entertain the frivolous charges brought by the Jews
against Paul (Acts 18:14-16), is in keeping with the character given of him
by his contemporaries. He was one of the victims of the cruelty of Nero. 1

2. PAUL’S LABORS IN CORINTH.

As Corinth was not only the political capital of Greece, but the seat of its
commercial and intellectual life; the place of concourse for the people not
only of the neighboring cities, but of nations; a source whence influences of
all kinds emanated in every direction, it was specially important for the
diffusion of the gospel. Paul, therefore, leaving Athens, which he had
visited in his second missionary journey, went alone to Corinth, where he
was soon after joined by Silas and Timotheus, who came from Macedonia.
(Acts 18:5.) A stranger in this great city, and without the means of
support, he associated himself with Aquila, a Jew lately come from Italy,
in consequence of the edict of Claudius banishing the Jews from Rome.
While living in the house of Aquila, and working with him at his trade of
tent-making, Paul attended the synagogue every Sabbath, and “persuaded
the Jews and Greeks.” But “when they opposed themselves and
blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be
upon your own heads; I am clean: henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
And he departed thence, and went into a certain man’s house, named
 6
Justus, one who worshipped God, and whose house joined hard to the
synagogue. And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the
Lord, with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing it believed,
and were baptized. Then spake the Lord to Paul by night, by a vision, Be
not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no
man shall set on thee to hurt thee; for I have much people in this city. And
he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among
them.” (Acts 18:1-11.) The success of Paul aroused the enmity of the
Jews, who determined to arraign him before the Roman governor. As soon
as the governor ascertained the nature of the charge, he refused to listen to
it, and dismissed the accusers from the judgment-seat with evident
displeasure which encouraged the bystanders to beat the Jews. Thus the
opposers of the apostle were ignominiously defeated. After remaining
some time longer in Corinth, he sailed from Cenchrea, the eastern port of
the city, to Ephesus, with Aquila and Priscilla. Leaving his friends in that
city, he sailed to Caesarea, and thence went up to Jerusalem. After
remaining a short time in the Holy City, he went to Antioch, and thence,
through Phrygia and Galatia, again to Ephesus. Shortly after Paul left
Ephesus the first time, Apollos, an Alexandrian Jew, having been more
fully instructed in the doctrine of Christ by Aquila and Priscilla, went to
Corinth, and there “mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly,
shewing by the Scripture that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 18:24-28.) It is
altogether probable, considering the constant commercial intercourse
between Corinth and Ephesus, that the apostle had frequent opportunities
of hearing of the state of the Corinthian church during his three years’
residence in the latter city. The information which he received led him, as
is generally supposed, to write a letter no longer extant, exhorting them
“not to keep company with fornicators.” (See 1 Corinthians 5:9.) Not
satisfied with this effort to correct an alarming evil, he seems himself to
have made them a brief visit. No record is indeed found in the Acts of his
having been to Corinth more than once before the date of this epistle; but
there are several passages in his second epistle which can hardly be
understood otherwise than as implying an intermediate visit. In 2
Corinthians 12:14 he says, “Behold, the third time I am ready to come to
you.” This may indeed mean that for the third time he had prepared to go
to Corinth; but this the context does not suggest, and would really amount
to nothing. It was not how often he had purposed to visit them, but how
 7
often he had actually made the journey, which was the point on which
stress is laid. In ch. 13:1 he says, “This is the third time I am coming to
you,” which is still more explicit. In ch. 2:1 he says, “I determined I would
not come again to you in heaviness.” This supposes that he had already
made them one sorrowful visit, i.e., one in which he had been obliged to
cause sorrow, as well as to experience it. See also ch. 12:21, and 13:2,
where further allusion seems to be made to a second visit. Notwithstanding
his frequent injunctions, the state of things in Corinth seemed to be getting
worse. The apostle therefore determined to send Timothy and Erastus to
them. (1 Corinthians 4:17. Acts 19:22.) Whether Timothy reached Corinth
at this time is doubtful; and it would seem from 1 Corinthians 16:10, that
the apostle himself feared that he might not be able to accomplish all that
had been appointed him in Macedonia, and yet get to Corinth before he
arrival of this letter. After the departure of Timothy, Paul received such
intelligence from the household of Chloe, and from a letter addressed to
him by the Corinthians themselves (1 Corinthians 7:1), that he determined
at once to write to them.

3. STATE OF THE CHURCH IN CORINTH.

The state of the church in Corinth may be partially inferred from the
character and circumstances of the people, but with certainty only from
the contents of this and the following epistles. As remarked above, the
population of the city was more than ordinarily heterogeneous. The
descendants of the colonists sent by Julius Caesar, the Greeks who were
attracted to the principal city of their own country, Jews and strangers
from all parts of the Roman Empire, were here congregated. The
predominant character of the people was doubtless Grecian. The majority
of the converts to Christianity were probably Greeks, as distinguished
from Jews. (See ch. 12:1.) In all ages the Greeks were distinguished by
their fondness for speculation, their vanity and love of pleasure, and their
party spirit. A church composed of people of these characteristics, with a
large infusion of Jewish converts, educated in the midst of refined
heathenism, surrounded by all the incentives to indulgence, taught to
consider pleasure, if not the chief good, yet in any form a good, plied on
every hand by philosophers and false teachers, might be expected to
 8
exhibit the very characteristics which in this epistle are brought so clearly
into view.

Their party spirit. “One said I am of Paul, another I am of Apollos;

another I of Cephas, another I of Christ.” Much ingenuity and learning
have been expended in determining the nature of these party divisions.
What may be considered as more or less satisfactorily determined is, —
1. That there were factions in the church of Corinth which called
themselves by the names above mentioned, and therefore that the
names themselves give a clue to the character of the parties. The idea
that the names of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, are used figuratively,
when other teachers were really intended, is so unnatural, and has so
little to sustain it, that it is now almost universally repudiated.
2. There can be little doubt that those who called themselves by the name
of Paul, or made themselves his partisans, were in the main the Gentile
converts, — men brought up free from the bondage of the Mosaic law,
and free from the influence of Jewish ideas and usages. They were
disposed to press to extremes the liberty of the gospel, to regard as
indifferent things in themselves sinful, and to treat without respect the
scruples of the weak.
3. The intimate relations which subsisted between Paul and Apollos, as
indicated in these epistles, authorizes the inference that it was not on
doctrinal grounds that the followers of the latter differed from those of
the former. It is probable that those who objected to Paul that he did
not preach with the “wisdom of words,” were those attracted by the
eloquence of Apollos.
4. It is scarcely less certain that those who said, “We are of Peter,” were
the Judaizers, as Peter was specially the apostle of the circumcision.
There is no evidence, however, from this epistle, that the leaders of
this party had attempted to introduce into Corinth the observance of
the Jewish law. But they were determined opponents of the Apostle
Paul. They had come to Corinth with letters of commendation (2
Corinthians 2:1). They were Hebrews (2 Corinthians 11:22); they
professed to be ministers of Christ (ch. 11:23); they were false
apostles (ch. 11:13); the ministers of Satan, handling the word of God
deceitfully. These men, as is evident from the defense which the
 9
apostle makes of his divine commission (1 Corinthians 9:1-3, 2
Corinthians 12:11, 12), called in question his apostleship, probably on
the ground that he was not of the original twelve. On this ground, also,
to give themselves the greater authority they claimed to be disciples of
Peter, who was the first of the apostles. They also accused Paul of
inconstancy and insincerity (2 Corinthians 1:17-24). In short, they
stirred up against him all the elements of discord which they could find
in a congregation composed of such incongruous materials.
5. With regard to those who said, We are of Christ, only two things are
certain. First, that they were as much to blame as the other parties. It
was in no Christian spirit that they set up their claim to be of Christ.
And secondly, that they assumed to have some relation to Christ,
which they denied to others. Whether it was because they had seen and
heard him, or because they claimed connection with “James, the
brother of the Lord,” or because they were the only genuine Christians,
inasmuch as through some other channel than the apostles, they had
derived, as they pretended, their knowledge of the gospel, is a matter
of conjecture.
Billroth and Baur regard this class as identical with the followers of Peter,
who claimed to be of Christ, because Paul was no apostle, and therefore
his disciples were not “of Christ.” According to this view there were only
two, instead of four, parties in Corinth — the followers of Paul and
Apollos belonging in one class. This, however, does violence to the plain
meaning of the passage in 1 Corinthians 1:12. These neutrals were
probably the worst class in the congregation, as is commonly the case with
those who claim to be Christians to the exclusion of all others.

Another great evil in the Corinthian church was the violation of the
seventh commandment in various forms. Educated as we are under the light
of the gospel, in which the turpitude of such sins is clearly revealed, it is
impossible for us to appreciate correctly the state of feeling in Corinth on
this subject. Even by heathen philosophers offenses of this kind were
regarded as scarcely deserving of censure, and by the public sentiment of
the community they were considered altogether indifferent. They were in
fact so associated with their religious rites and festivals as to lose their
character as immoralities. With such previous training, and under the
influence of such a public sentiment, and surrounded by all incitements and
 10
facilities to evil, it is surely not a matter of surprise that many of the
Corinthians should take the ground that things of this class belonged to the
same category with questions of food (1 Corinthians 6:12). It is certain,
from numerous passages in these epistles, that the church of Corinth was
not only very remiss in the exercise of discipline for such matters, but also
that the evil was widely extended.

Another indication of the latitudinarian spirit of one portion of the church,

was their conduct in reference to the sacrificial offerings and feasts of the
heathen. They had been accustomed not only freely to eat meat which had
been offered in sacrifice to idols, but to attend the feasts held in the
temples. As they were told as Christians that the distinction between clean
and unclean meats was abolished, and that the gods of the heathen were
nothing, they insisted on their right to continue in their accustomed habits.
This gave rise to great scandal. The stricter portion of the church, whether
Jews or Gentiles, regarded all use of sacrificial meat as involving in some
form connection with idolatry. This, therefore, was one of the questions of
conscience which was answered differently by different parties, and no
doubt contributed to promote the divisions existing among them.

The turbulent and independent spirit of the people also was

conspicuously manifested in their public assemblies. Instead of following
the instructions of the apostles and the usages of the church, they
converted the Lord’s Supper into a disorderly common meal; in violation
of the public sentiment and the custom of all the churches, they allowed
women to appear unveiled in their congregations and to speak in public;
and in the spirit of emulation and ostentation they exercised their gifts of
prophecy and speaking with tongues, without regard to order or
edification. Besides all this, under the influence probably of the heathen
philosophy, some among them denied the doctrine of the resurrection, and
thus subverted the very foundation of the gospel.

Such is the picture presented in this epistle of one of the most flourishing
churches of the apostolic age, drawn, not by an enemy, but by the apostle
himself. with all this, however, there were not only many pure and
exemplary members of the church, but much faith and piety even in those
who were more or less chargeable with these disorders. Paul, therefore,
 11
addressed them as sanctified in Christ Jesus, thanks God for the grace
which he had bestowed upon them, and expresses his confidence that God
would preserve them blameless until the day of the Lord Jesus. This
shows us how the gospel works in heathen lands. It is like leaven hid in a
measure of meal. It is long before the whole mass is leavened. It does not
transform the character of men or the state of society in a moment; but it
keeps up a continual conflict with evil until it is finally overcome.

4. DATE. — CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.

The date of this epistle is determined by its contents. It was evidently

written from Ephesus towards the close of Paul’s protracted sojourn in
that city. He tells the Corinthians that he was to visit Macedonia, and
would then come to Corinth, but that he must tarry in Ephesus till
Pentecost (ch. 16:5-8.) Compare also v. 19, which agrees with the account
given in Acts 19:20; 20:1, 2. After the uproar excited by Demetrius, Paul,
as we learn from these passages, did go to Macedonia, and then to Greece;
and thence, with the contributions of the saints, to Jerusalem. Accordingly,
in his epistle to the Romans, written from Corinth, he says, “Now I go
unto Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it hath pleased them of
Macedonia and of Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints
which are in Jerusalem.” (Romans 15:25, 26.) These and other data seem to
fix the date of the epistle about the year 57, or five years after his first
visit to Corinth. There are no indications of a later date, unless any one
should find it hard to believe that Paul had already suffered all that is
recorded in 2 Corinthians 11:23-28. Five times he had received of the Jews
forty stripes save one, thrice he had been beaten with rods, once he was
stoned, thrice he had suffered shipwreck, a day and a night he had been in
the deep. These and the other dangers there enumerated seem enough to fill
a lifetime. But this only shows how small a part of the labors and
sufferings of the apostles is recorded in the Acts. It furnishes no sufficient
reason for referring this epistle to a later period of the apostle’s career.

As this epistle was written to correct the various disorders which had
arisen in the Corinthian church after the apostle’s departure, and to meet
the calumnies and objections of the false teachers by whom the peace of
 12
the church had been disturbed, and his own authority called in question, its
contents are to a corresponding degree diversified. The apostle begins with
the assertion of his Divine commission, and with the usual salutation,
1:1-3. Then follows the general introduction to the epistle, commendatory
and conciliatory in its tone and intention, 1:4-9. He then introduces the
subject of the party divisions by which the church was disturbed, and
showed how inconsistent they were with the relation which believers bear
to Christ and to each other; and how careful he had been to avoid all
appearance of desiring to be a party leader among them. He had even
abstained from baptizing lest any should say he baptized in his own name,
1:10-16. He had baptized only a few among them, for his business was to
preach rather than to baptize.

As one class of his opponents directed their attacks against his want of
philosophy and rhetorical refinement as a preacher, he for a time leaves the
subject of their party contentions, and addresses himself to these
objections. He tells them that he did not preach the wisdom of this world,
because God had pronounced it to be folly, because all experience proved
it to be inefficacious to bring men to the knowledge of God, because God
had determined to save men by the preaching of Christ as crucified,
because their history showed that it was not the wise who embraced the
gospel, but God so administered his grace as to force all men to
acknowledge that it was of him, and not of themselves, that they became
united to Christ, and thereby partakers of the true wisdom, as well as of
righteousness, holiness, and redemption, 1:17-31. Such being the case, he
had come among them, not with the self-confidence of a philosopher, but
as a simple witness to bear testimony to the fact that the Son of God had
died for our redemption. Under a deep sense of his insufficency, he spoke
to them with fear and trembling, relying for success not on his own powers
of persuasion, but wholly on the power with which the Holy Spirit
accompanied the truth; knowing that the true foundation of faith was not
argument, but the witness of the Spirit with and by the truth, 2:1-5.
Howbeit, although he repudiated human wisdom, the gospel which he
preached was the true wisdom, a system of truth which God had made
known, which was far above the power of man to discover, but which the
Spirit of God had revealed. This Divine wisdom he preached not in the
words which the rhetorician prescribed, but which the Holy Ghost
 13
dictated. Both the truths which he taught, and the words which he used in
communicating that truth, were taught by the Holy Ghost, If any man
neglected what was thus presented, the fault was neither in the doctrines
taught, nor in the mode in which they were exhibited, but in the objector.
The things of the Spirit must be spiritually discerned, 2:6-16.

The first evil: After this defense of his mode of preaching, the apostle
resumes the subject of their divisions. He had preached to them in as high a
strain as they were able to bear. They were but babes in Christ, and had to
be fed with milk. That they were in this low stage of the Christian life was
manifest from their contentions, 3:1-4. As these contentions had reference
to their religious teachers, Paul endeavors to correct the evil by showing
what ministers really are.
First, he says, they are mere instruments, — servants; men sent to deliver
a message or perform a given work; not the authors of the system of
truth which they taught. All authority and efficiency are in God.
Secondly, ministers are one. They teach the same doctrine, they have the
same object, and stand in the same relation to God.
Thirdly, every one will have to answer for his work. If he attempt to lay
any other foundation than Christ, he is not a Christian minister. If on
that foundation he builds with sound doctrine, he shall receive a
reward; if with false doctrine, he shall be punished.
Fourthly, human wisdom in this matter must be renounced. A man must
become a fool in order to be truly wise.
Fifthly, such being the relation of ministers to the church, the people
should not place their confidence in them, or regard themselves as
belonging to their ministers, since all things were subordinate to the
people of God, ministers as well as other things, 3:5-20.
Sixthly, ministers being stewards, whose office it is to dispense the truth
of God, fidelity on their part is the great thing to be demanded.

So far as he was himself concerned, it was a small matter what they

thought of his fidelity, as the only final judge was the Lord. The true
character of the ministerial office he had illustrated by a reference to
himself and Apollos, that they might learn to estimate ministers aright, and
 14
not contend about them. He then contrasts himself, as suffering, laboring,
and despised, with the false teachers and their followers, and exhorts the
Corinthians to be followers of him, and intimates his apprehension that he
would have to come to them with a rod, 4:1-21. This is the end of that
portion of the epistle which relates to the divisions existing in the church.

The second evil which it was the design of this epistle to correct, was the
remissness of the Corinthians in the exercise of church discipline.
Fornication was not only tolerated, but they allowed a man who had
married his father’s wife to retain his standing in the church. Paul here
interferes, and in the exercise of his apostolical authority, not only
pronounces on this incestuous person a sentence of excommunication, but
delivers him to Satan, 5:1-5. He enforces on the church the general duty to
exclude immoral members from their communion, 5:6-13.

Thirdly, the practice which some of them had introduced of going to law
before heathen magistrates, he severely condemns, 6:1-11.

Fourthly, the principle that all things are lawful, which the apostle had
often uttered in reference to the ceremonial distinction between clean and
unclean meats, some of the Corinthians had perverted as an argument to
prove that fornication is a matter of indifference. The apostle shows the
fallacy of this argument, and assures them that no sin is so great a
desecration of the body, or more fatal to its union with Christ, and
participation of the benefits of redemption, 6:12-20.

Fifthly, marriage was another subject about which the minds of the
Corinthians were disturbed, and on which they sought the advice of the
apostle. They wished him to tell them whether marriage was obligatory, or
lawful, or expedient; whether divorce or separation was allowable; and
especially, whether a Christian could consistently remain in the conjugal
relation with a heathen. All these questions are answered in the seventh
chapter, in which the apostle lays down the principles which are
applicable to all cases of conscience in reference to that subject, 7:1-40.

Sixthly: Surrounded as the Corinthians were by idolatry, whose

institutions pervaded all the relations of society, it became a question how
 15
far Christians might conform to the usages connected with heathen
worship. The most important question was, whether it was lawful to eat
meat which had been offered in sacrifice to idols. On this point Paul agreed
in principle with those who took the affirmative side in this controversy.
He admitted that the idols were nothing, and that what was offered them
was nothing, i.e., received no new character from its having been a sacrifice,
and that the use of it involved no communion with idolatry. A regard,
however, to the spiritual welfare of others, should lead them to abstain
from the use of such meat under circumstances which might encourage
others to act against their own convictions, 8:1-13.

In exhorting them to exercise self-denial for the benefit of others, Paul

urged them to nothing which he was not himself willing to do. Although he
enjoyed all the liberty which belongs to other Christians, and had all rights
belonging to ministers or apostles, he had abstained from claiming them
whenever the good of the church required. For example, although entitled
on all the grounds of justice, usage, and of divine appointment, to be
supported by those to whom he preached, he had sustained himself by the
labor of his own hands; and so far as the Corinthians were concerned, he
was determined still to do so. He was determined that his enemies in
Corinth should not have the slightest pretext for accusing him of preaching
the gospel from mercenary motives, 9:1-18. This, however, was not a
solitary instance. In all things indifferent he had accommodated himself to
Jews and Gentiles, to the strong and to the weak. He had exercised the
self-denial and self-control which every combatant in the ancient games
was obliged to submit to who hoped to win the prize, 9:19-27. What he
did, other Christians must do. The history of the church shows that the
want of such self-denial was fatal even to those who were the most highly
favored. The ancient Israelites had been delivered out of Egypt by the
direct and manifest intervention of God; they had been miraculously
guided and miraculously fed in the wilderness, and yet the great majority
perished. Their experience should be a warning to the Corinthians not to be
overcome by similar temptations, and especially to be on their guard
against idolatry, 10:1-13. Their danger in this respect was very great. They
knew that the Grecian deities were imaginary beings; they knew that things
offered to those deities had no contaminating power; they knew that it
was, under some circumstances, lawful to eat meat which had been thus
 16
offered; they were, therefore, in danger of being led to eat it under
circumstances which would render them guilty of idolatry. As they were
constantly exposed to have such meat set before them, it became a matter
of the highest importance to know when it might, and when it might not be
eaten with impunity. The general principle which the apostle lays down
on this subject is, that all participation in the religious services of a people,
brings us into communion with them as worshippers, and therefore with
the objects of their worship. Consequently, to eat of heathen sacrifices
under circumstances which gave a religious character to the act, was
idolatry. It is not necessary that they themselves should view the matter in
this light. They might worship idols, and incur the guilt and penalty of
idolatry, without knowing or suspecting that they did so. To prove this,
he appealed to their own convictions. They knew that all who came to the
Lord’s table did thereby join in the worship of Christ; and that all who
attended the altars of the Jews, and eat of the sacrifices, did thereby unite
in the worship of Jehovah. By parity of reasoning, those who took part in
the religious festivals of the heathen, joined in the worship of idols. And,
although the idols were nothing, still the worship of them was apostasy
from God, and the worship of devils, 10:14-22. On the other hand, to eat
of these sacrifices under circumstances which precluded the idea of a
religious service, was a matter of indifference. Therefore, if meat offered to
idols was exposed for sale in the market, or met with at private tables, it
might be eaten with impunity, 10:23-33.

Seventhly: Grave abuses had been introduced into the celebration of

public worship at Corinth. The women spoke in public unveiled; the
Lord’s Supper was degraded into a common meal; and the use of spiritual
gifts gave rise to great disorder. With regard to the first of these abuses, the
apostle teaches that, as by the divine constitution the woman is
subordinate to the man, and as the veil was the conventional symbol of
that subordination, for a woman to appear in public unveiled, was to
renounce her position, and to forfeit the respect due to her sex, 8:1-16. As
to the Lord’s Supper, it seems probable that it was, in Corinth at least,
connected with an ordinary meal, in which all the Christians met at a
common table. For this meal each one brought what provisions he was able
to contribute. Instead, however, of its being a feast of brotherly love, the
rich ate by themselves, and left their poorer brethren no part in the feast.
 17
To correct this abuse, destructive of the whole intent of the sacrament, the
apostle reminds his readers that he had communicated to them the account
of the original institution of the ordinance, as he himself had received it of
the Lord. According to that institution, it was designed not to satisfy
hunger, but to commemorate the death of Christ. It was therefore a
religious service of a peculiarly solemn character. The bread and wine being
the appointed symbols of his body and blood, to eat and drink in a
careless, irreverent manner, making no distinctions between the
consecrated elements and ordinary food, was to be guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord, 11:17-34.

With regard to spiritual gifts, the apostle, after reminding the Corinthians
that the possession of these gifts was one of the distinctive marks of their
Christian, as distinguished from their heathen state, teaches that all these
extraordinary manifestations of the Holy Ghost have a common origin;
that they were all given, not for the exaltation of those who received hem,
but for the edification of the church, and that they were distributed
according to the good pleasure of God. He illustrates all these points by a
reference to the human body. As the body is one, being animated by one
soul, so the church is one, being animated by one Spirit. And as the vital
principle manifests itself in different forms in the different members of the
body, for the common good; and as the different members have their office
assigned to them by God, and are mutually dependent, being bound
together as a common life, so that one part cannot be injured or honored,
without all sharing in the joy or sorrow, so it is in the church. There
should, therefore, be no discontent or envy on the part of those who have
subordinate gifts, and no pride or ostentation on the part of those more
highly favored; especially as the more showy gifts were not the most
useful. So far, therefore, as their gifts were objects of desire, they should
seek those which were the most useful, 12:1-31.

There was, however, one thing more important than any of these gifts, and
without which all others, whether faith, knowledge, or the power to work
miracles, would be of no avail; and that is Love. The love which renders its
possessor meek, kind, humble, disinterested, forbearing, and enduring. This
is the highest grace, which is to endure when all these extraordinary
endowments have passed away, 13:1-13. The two gifts which were most
 18
conspicuous in the church of Corinth, were those of prophecy, and the gift
of speaking in foreign tongues. The latter being the more wonderful, and
exciting more admiration than the other, was unduly coveted and
ostentatiously excersied. The apostle shows that it was very subordinate
to the gift of prophecy, because the prophets were inspired to
communicate, in an intelligible manner, divine truth to the edification of the
church. Whereas, their speaking with tongues, where the language they
used was not understood, could only edify themselves, 14:1-40.

Eighthly: Certain persons in Corinth denied the Resurrection. Whatever

the grounds on which this doctrine was rejected, the apostle shows that its
denial involved the destruction of the gospel, for if the dead cannot rise,
Christ is not risen; and if Christ be not risen, we have no Savior. He
therefore proves, first, the fact of the resurrection of Christ, and then
shows that his resurrection secures that of his people, 15:1-36; and finally,
that the objection that material bodies, such as we now have, are unsuitable
to the future state, is founded on the false assumption, that matter cannot
be so refined as to furnish material for bodies adapted to the soul in its
highest state of existence, 15:36-58. The sixteenth chapter is devoted to
directions relative to the collection for the poor, and to certain admonitions
and salutations.

5. IMPORTANCE OF THIS EPISTLE.

Paul’s relation to the church in Corinth was in some respects peculiar. He

was not only the founder of the congregation, but he continued in the
closest relation to it. It excited his solicitude, called for the wisest
management, tried his patience and forbearance, rewarded him at times by
signal evidence of affection and obedience, and filled him with hopes of its
extended and healthful influence. His love for that church was therefore of
special intensity. It was analogous to that of a father for a promising son
beset with temptations, whose character combined great excellencies with
great defects. The epistles to the Corinthians, therefore, reveal to us more
of the personal character of the apostle than any of his other letters. They
show him to us as a man, as a pastor, as a counselor, as in conflict not only
with heretics, but with personal enemies. They reveal his wisdom, his zeal,
 19
his forbearance, his liberality of principle and practice in all matters of
indifference, his strictness in all matters of right and wrong, his humility,
and perhaps above all, his unwearied activity and wonderful endurance.

There is another consideration which gives a special interest to these

epistles. They show more clearly than any other portion of the New
Testament, Christianity in conflict with heathenism. We see what method
Paul adopted in founding the church in the midst of a refined and corrupt
people; how he answered questions of conscience arising out of the
relations of Christians to the heathen around them. The cases may never
occur again, but the principles involved in their decision are of perpetual
obligation, and serve as lights to the church in all ages. Principles relating to
church discipline, to social relations and intercourse, to public worship, the
nature of the church, and of the sacraments, are here unfolded, not in an
abstract form, so much as in their application. These epistles, therefore, in
reference to all practical measures in the establishment of the church among
the heathen, and in its conduct in Christian lands, are among the most
important portions of the word of God.
 20

CHAPTER I.
Salutation, vs. 1-3. Introduction, vs. 4-9. The divisions which existed in the
Church at Corinth, vs. 10-16.
Defense of the Apostle’s mode of preaching, vs. 17-31.

INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE. VS. 1-9.

Paul declares himself to be a divinely appointed messenger of Christ, v. 1.

In this character he addresses the church at Corinth, as those who were
sanctified in Christ, and called to be saints. He includes in his salutation all
the worshippers of Christ in that vicinity, v. 2; and invokes upon them the
blessings of grace and peace, v. 3.

The introduction is as usual commendatory. He thanks God for the favor

shown to the Corinthians; for the various gifts by which the gospel had
been confirmed among them, and by which they were placed on a full
equality with the most favored churches, vs. 4-7. He expresses his
confidence, founded on the fidelity of God, that they would be preserved
from apostasy until the day of the Lord, vs. 8, 9.

1. Paul, called (to be) an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God,
and Sosthenes (our) brother.

Paul, so called after his conversion and the commencement of his labors
among the Gentiles. His Jewish name was Saul. It was common for the
Jews to bear one name among their own people, and another among
foreigners.

Called (to be) an apostle, that is, appointed an apostle. The apostleship
being an office, it could not be assumed at pleasure. Appointment by
competent authority was absolutely indispensable. The word apostle
means literally a messenger, and then a missionary, or one sent to preach
the gospel. In its strict official sense it is applied only to the immediate
messengers of Christ, the infallible teachers of his religion and founders of
 21
his church. In calling himself an apostle Paul claims divine authority
derived immediately from Christ.

By the will of God, that is, by divine authority. Paul was made an apostle
neither by popular election, nor by consecration by those who were
apostles before him; but by immediate appointment from God. On this
point, see his explicit declaration, Galatians 1:1.

And Sosthenes (our) brother. In the Greek it is the brother. He was a

brother well known to the Corinthians, and probably one of the
messengers sent by them to the apostle, or whom they knew to be with
him. In Acts 18:17 a man by this name is mentioned as the ruler of the
synagogue in Corinth, and a leader of those who arraigned Paul before the
judgment seat of Gallio. This identity of name is not a sufficient proof that
the person was the same, especially as the name was a common one. The
companions of the apostles, whom he associates with himself in his
salutations to the churches, are not merely placed in the position of
equality of office and authority with the apostle. On the contrary, they are
uniformly distinguished in these respects from the writer of the epistles.
Thus it is “Paul the apostle,” but “Sosthenes the brother;” or, “Paul the
apostle and Timothy the brother,” Colossians 1:1, and elsewhere. They are
associated in the salutation, not in the epistle. Very probably Sosthenes
was the amanuensis of Paul in this instance, and Timothy in others.

2. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in
Christ Jesus, called (to be) saints, with all that in every place call upon the
name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.

To the church of God. The word church is used in Scripture as a collective

term for the people of God, considered as called out from the world.
Sometimes it means the whole number of God’s people, as when it is said,
Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, Ephesians 5:25. Sometimes
it means the people of God as a class, as when Paul said, he persecuted the
church of God, Galatians 1:13. Sometimes it means the professing
Christians of any one place, as when mention is made of the church in
Jerusalem, Antioch, or Corinth. Any number, however small, of professing
Christians collectively considered may be called a church. Hence we hear
 22
of the church in the house of Philemon, and in the house of Aquila and
Priscilla, Romans 16:5. It is called the church of God, because it belongs to
him. He selects and calls its members, and, according to Acts 20:28, it is
his, because he has bought it with his blood.

To them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus. This is explanatory of the

proceeding clauses, and teaches us the nature of the church. It consists of
the sanctified. The word (aJgia>zw) translated to sanctify, means to cleanse.
And as sin is presented under the twofold aspect of guilt and pollution, to
sanctify, or to cleanse from sin, may mean either to expiate built by an
atonement, or to renew by the Holy Ghost. It is used for expiation by
sacrifice in Hebrews 2:11, 10:14, 13:12, and elsewhere. The word also
means to render sacred by consecrating any person or thing to the service
of God. In the present case all these ideas may be united. The church
consists of those whose guilt is expiated, who are inwardly holy, and who
are consecrated to God as his peculiar people.

In Christ Jesus, that is, in virtue of union with him. It is only in him that
we are partakers of these inestimable blessings. It is because we are in him
as our head and representative, that we are justified by his righteousness;
and it is because we are in him as a branch is in the vine, that we are
purified by his Spirit.

Called (to be) saints, that is, by the effectual call of the Holy Spirit
constituted saints. “The called” always mean the effectual called as
distinguished from the merely externally invited. Saints. The original word
(a[giov) sometimes signifies sacred, set apart to a holy use. In this sense
the temple, the altar, the priests, the prophets, and the whole theocratic
people, are called holy. In the New Testament the word is commonly
expressive of inward purity, or consecration of the soul to God. Believers
are saints in both senses of the word; they are inwardly renewed, and
outwardly consecrated. It is not to be inferred from the fact that the
apostle addresses all the nominal Christians in Corinth as saints and as
sanctified in Christ Jesus, that they were all true believers, or that those
terms express nothing more than external consecration. Men are uniformly
addressed in Scripture according to their profession. If they profess to be
saints, they are called saints; if they profess to be believers, they are called
 23
believers; and if they profess to be members of the church, they are
addressed as really belonging to it. This passage teaches also, as Calvin
remarks, the useful lesson that a body may be very corrupt both as to
doctrine and practice, as such corruption, undoubtedly prevailed even in
Corinth, and yet it may be properly recognized as a church of God. Locus
diligenter observandus, ne requiramus in hoc mundo ecclesiam omni ruga et
macula carentem: aut protinus abdicemus hoc titulo quemvis coetum in quo
non omnia votis nostris respondeant.

With all that in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. To
call upon the name of any one is to invoke his aid. It is properly used for
religious invocation. Compare Acts 9:14, 21, and 22:16. Romans 10:12, 13;
2 Timothy 2:22. To call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, is to
invoke his aid as Christ, the Messiah predicted by the prophets, and as
our almighty and sovereign possessor and ruler. It is in that sense Jesus is
Lord. All power in heaven and earth has been committed unto him; and he
died and rose again that he might be the Lord of the dead and of the living;
that is, that he might acquire that peculiar right of possession in his people
which arises from his having purchased them with his blood. To call upon
the name of Jesus as Lord is therefore to worship him. It is to look to him
for that help which God only can give. All Christians, therefore, are the
worshippers of Christ. And every sincere worshipper of Christ is a true
Christian. The phrase expresses not so much an individual act of
invocation, as an habitual state of mind and its appropriate expression.

It might at first view appear from this clause that this epistle was
addressed not only to the church in Corinth, but to all the worshippers of
Christ. This would make it a catholic, or general epistle, which it is not. To
get over this difficulty some explain the connection thus: ‘Called to be
saints together with all who call upon the name of Christ:’ that is, the
Corinthians as well as all other worshippers of Christ were called to be
saints. A reference to 2 Corinthians 1:1 suggests a better explanation. It is
there said, “To the church of God which is at Corinth with all the saints
which are in all Achaia.” The same limitation must be supplied here. This
epistle was addressed not only to the Christians in Corinth, but also to all
their brethren in the province of which Corinth was the capital.
 24
Theirs and ours. These words admit of two connections. They may be
connected with the word Lord, ‘Their Lord and ours.’ There were certain
persons in Corinth who claimed a peculiar relation to Christ, and said, “We
are of Christ;” to whom Paul said, “If any trust to himself that he is
Christ’s, let him of himself think this again, as he is Christ’s, so are we
Christ’s,” 2 Corinthians 10:7. It is possible that he may have intended at
the very opening of his epistle, to rebuke this exclusive Spirit, and to
remind his readers that Christ is the common Lord of all who call upon
him. The position of the words however renders it more natural to
understand the apostle to mean, “in every place, theirs and ours.” If this be
the true construction, then the sense may be, ‘In every place of worship
theirs and ours.’ This interpretation supposes that the divisions known to
exist in Corinth had led to the separation of the people into different
worshipping assemblies. There is, however, not only no evidence that such
external separation had occurred, but clear evidence in ch. 11:18 to the
contrary. Others understand the sense to be, ‘In every place, theirs and
ours,’ i.e. ‘where they are, and where I am.’ This supposes the epistle to
be general. A third interpretation has been proposed. The epistle is
addressed to all Christians in Corinth and Achaia, wherever they might be.
Every place is at once theirs and ours. Their place of abode, and my place
of labor.

3. Grace (be) unto you, and peace from God our Father, and (from) the
Lord Jesus Christ.

Grace is favor, and peace its fruits. The former includes all that is
comprehended in the love of God as exercised towards sinners; and the
latter all the benefits which flow from that love. All good, therefore,
whether providential or spiritual, whether temporal or eternal, is
comprehended in these terms: justification, adoption and sanctification
with all the benefits which either accompany or flow from them. These
infinite blessings suppose an infinite source; and as they are sought no less
from Christ than from God the Father, Christ must be a divine person. It is
to be remarked that God is called our Father, and Christ our Lord. God as
God has not only created us, but renewed and adopted us. God in Christ
has redeemed us. He is our owner and sovereign, to whom our allegiance is
immediately due; who reigns in and rules over us, defending us from all his
 25
and our enemies. This is the peculiar form which piety assumes under the
gospel. All Christians regard God as their Father and Christ as their Lord.
His person they love, his voice they obey, and in his protection they trust.

4. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is
given you by Jesus Christ.

Paul expresses his gratitude for the grace of God given to the Corinthians.
The word grace, as just remarked, means favor, and then the blessings of
which that favor is the source; just as we use the word favor sometimes
for a disposition of the mind, and sometimes for gifts; as when we speak
of receiving favors. The latter is the sense of the word in this place.

By Christ Jesus, or rather, in Christ Jesus. This limits and explains the kind
of favors to which the apostle refers. He renders thanks for those gifts
which God had bestowed upon them in virtue of their union with Christ.
The fruits of the Spirit are the blessings referred to. These inward spiritual
benefits are as much gifts as health or prosperity, and are, therefore, as
properly the grounds of gratitude. All virtues are graces, gifts of the grace
of God.

5. That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and (in) all
knowledge.

This verse is explanatory of the preceding. Paul gives thanks for the grace
which they had received, i.e. that in every thing they were enriched. In
every thing (ejn panti>), in every respect they were richly endowed with
the gifts of the Spirit. In all utterance and in all knowledge; that is, with all
the gifts of utterance and knowledge. Some were prophets some were
teachers, some had the gift of tongues. These were different forms of the
gift of utterance. In all knowledge, that is, in every kind and degree of
religious knowledge. This interpretation gives a good sense, and is the one
very generally adopted. The word (lo>gov) translated utterance, may
however be taken in the sense of doctrine, and the word (gnw~siv)
translated knowledge, in the sense of insight. The meaning would then be,
that the church in Corinth was rightly endowed with divine truth, and with
clear apprehension or understanding of the doctrines which they had been
 26
taught. They were second to no other church either as to doctrinal
knowledge or spiritual discernment. Lo>gov, according to this view, is the
truth preached; gnw~iv, the truth apprehended. — Meyer.

6. Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you.

Even as, i.e. because, imasmuch as. They were thus enriched, because the
testimony of Christ, that is, the gospel, was confirmed among them. The
gospel is called the ‘testimony of Christ,’ either because it is the testimony
concerning God and divine things, which Christ bore; or because it is the
testimony which the apostles bore concerning Christ. Either explanation is
agreeable to the analogy of the Scripture. Christ is called the true witness;
and is said to have borne witness of the truth. Compare John 3:11, 32, 33;
8:13, 14. On the other hand, the apostles are frequently called the
witnesses of Christ, and are said to have borne testimony concerning him.
The gospel, therefore, is, in one view, the testimony which Christ bore;
and, in another, the testimony which the apostles bore concerning him.
The former is the higher, and therefore, the better sense. It is good to
contemplate the gospel as that system of truth which the eternal Logos, or
Revealer, has made known.

Was confirmed in you. This may mean either, was firmly established
among you; or was firmly established in your faith. The gospel was
demonstrated by the Holy Spirit to be true, and was firmly settled in their
conviction. This firm faith was then, as it is now, the necessary condition
of the enjoyment of the blessings by which the gospel is attended.
Therefore the apostle adds.

7. So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ

Such was their strength of faith that the gifts of the Spirit were bestowed
upon them as abundantly as upon any other church. This connection of
faith with the divine blessing is often presented in Scripture. Our Lord said
to the father who sought his aid in behalf of his demoniac child, “If thou
canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth,” Mark 9:23.
And on another occasion, “According to thy faith be it unto thee,”
 27
Matthew 9:29. In his own country, it is said, he did not many mighty
works “because of their unbelief,” Matthew 13:58. The Holy Ghost,
therefore, confers on men his gifts in proportion to their faith. The word
(ca>risma) gift, is used both for the ordinary and extraordinary gifts of the
Spirit; most frequently for the latter. Here it includes both classes. The
Corinthians had not only the inward gifts of repentance, faith and
knowledge, but also those of miracles, of healing, of speaking with tongues,
of prophecy, in rich abundance. No church was superior to them in these
respects. The extraordinary gifts, however, seem to be principally
intended. Paul’s commendation has reference to their wisdom, knowledge
and miraculous gifts, rather than to their spiritual graces. Much as he found
to censure in their state and conduct, he freely acknowledged their
flourishing condition in many points of view.

Waiting the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Waiting (ajpekdecome>nouv),

patiently expecting, comp. 1 Peter 3:20, or expecting with desire, i.e.
longing for. Comp. Romans 8:19, 20, 23. The object of this patient and
earnest expectation of believers is the coming (ajpoka>luyin) i.e. the
revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. The second advent of Christ, so
clearly predicted by himself and by his apostles, connected as it is with
the promise of the resurrection of his people and the consummation of his
kingdom, was the object of longing expectation to all the early Christians.
So great is the glory connected with that event that Paul, in Romans
8:18-23, not only represents all present afflictions as trifling in
comparison, but describes the whole creation as looking forward to it with
earnest expectation. Comp. Philippians 3:20. Titus 2:13. So general was
this expectation that Christians were characterized as those “who love his
appearing,” 2 Timothy 4:8, and as those “who wait for him,” Hebrews
9:28. Why is it that this longing for the coming of Christ is awakened in
the hearts of his people? The apostle answers this question by saying that
the “first fruits of the Spirit” enjoyed by believers in this life are an
earnest, that is, a foretaste and pledge, of those blessings which they are to
receive in their fullness at the second advent. The Spirit, therefore,
awakens desire for that event. See Romans 8:23. Ephesians 1:14. The same
truth is here implied. The Corinthians had received largely the gifts of the
Spirit: the consequence was they waited with patience and desire for the
revelation of Christ, when they should enter on that inheritance of which
 28
those gifts are the foretaste and pledge. If the second coming of Christ is to
Christians of the present day less an object of desire than it was to their
brethren during the apostolic age, it must be because they think the Lord is
“slack concerning his promise,” and forget that with him a thousand years
is as one day.

8. Who shall also confirm you unto the end, (that ye may be) blameless in
the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Who most naturally refers to God as its antecedent, because he is the

prominent subject in the context; and because the reference to Christ
would make the apostle say ‘Christ shall confirm unto the day of Christ;’
and because in the following verse, God is expressly mentioned. ‘Because
God is faithful, he will confirm you,’ is the clear meaning of the passage.
Besides, vocation and perseverance are, in the work of redemption,
specially referred to the Father.

Shall also confirm you. God had not only enriched them with the gifts of
the Spirit but he would also confirm them. The one was an assurance of
the other. Those to whom God gives the renewing influence of the Spirit,
he thereby pledges himself to save; for “the first fruits of the Spirit” are, as
just remarked, of the nature of a pledge. They are an earnest, as the apostle
says, of the future inheritance, Ephesians 1:14; 2 Corinthians 1:21, 22.
Shall confirm (bebaiw>sei) i.e. shall make steadfast, preserve from falling.
The word is used in reference to persons and things. God is said to confirm
his promises, when he fulfills them, or so acts as to prevent their failing,
see Romans 15:8, or when he demonstrates their truth, Mark 16:20. He is
said to confirm his people when he renders them steadfast in the belief and
obedience of the truth, 2 Corinthians 1:21. Unto the end, may mean the end
of life, or the end of this dispensation, i.e. to the end of the period which
was to precede the advent of Christ; or it may be understood indefinitely
as we use the expression “final perseverance.” Unblamable, i.e. not
arraigned or accused. He is unblamable against whom no accusation can be
brought. In this sense it is said “a bishop must be blameless,” Titus 1:6.7.
God will confirm his people so that when the day of judgment comes,
which is the day of our Lord Jesus, i.e. the day of his second advent, they
shall stand before him blameless, not chargeable with apostasy or any
 29
other sin. They are to be ‘holy and without blame.’ Compare 1
Thessalonians 5:23. When we remember on the one hand how great is our
guilt, and on the other, how great is our danger from without and from
within, we feel that nothing but the righteousness of Christ and the power
of God can secure our being preserved and presented blameless in the day
of the Lord Jesus.

9. God (is) faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son
Jesus Christ our Lord.

God is faithful, one in whom we may confide; one who will fulfill all his
promises. The apostle’s confidence in the steadfastness and final
perseverance of believers was founded neither on the strength of their
purpose to persevere, nor on any assumption that the principle of religion
in their hearts was indestructible, but simply on the fidelity of God. If
God has promised to give certain persons to his Son as his inheritance, to
deliver them from sin and condemnation and to make them partakers of
eternal life, it is certain he will not allow them to perish. This is plain
enough, but how did the apostle know that those to whom he wrote were
included in the number of those given to Christ, and that the fidelity of
God was pledged to their salvation? It was because they were called.
Whom he calls, them he also justifies; and whom he justifies them he also
glorifies, Romans 8:30. The call intended is the effectual call of the Holy
Spirit, by which the soul is renewed and translated from the kingdom of
darkness into the kingdom of light. The only evidence of election is
therefore vocation, and the only evidence of vocation, is holiness of heart
and life, for we are called into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our
Lord. Compare again Romans 8:29, where believers are said to be
“predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son.” To this they are
effectually called. They are made like Christ. Fellowship includes union
and communion. The original word (koinwni>a) signifies participation, as
in 10, 16, “participation of the blood of Christ,” 2 Corinthians 13:13,
“participation of the Holy Ghost.” We are called to be partakers of Christ;
partakers of his life, as members of his body; and therefore, partakers of
his character, of his sufferings here and of his glory hereafter. This last idea
is made specially prominent. Believers are called to be partakers of the
glory of Christ, Romans 8:17, 23; 2 Thessalonians 2:14. It is because
 30
believers are thus partakers of Christ, that the apostle was assured they
could never perish. The person with whom believers are thus intimately
united, is the Son of God; of the same nature, being the same in substance
and equal in power and glory. He is also Jesus, a man; consequently he is
both God and man, in two distinct natures, and one person. This incarnate
God, the Savior, is the Christ, of whom the Old Testament says and
promises so much. He is also our Lord, we belong to him; he is our
possessor, our sovereign, our protector. How can they apostatize and
perish who stand in this relation to the eternal Son of God?

OF THE DIVISIONS IN
THE CHURCH OF CORINTH. VS. 10-16.

As one of the principal objects of this epistle was to correct the evils
which had arisen in the church of Corinth, the apostle adverts, first, to the
divisions which there existed. He exhorts the members of that church to
unity, v. 10. The reason of that exhortation was the information which he
had received concerning their dissensions. v. 11. These divisions arose
from their ranging themselves under different religious teachers as party
leaders, v. 12. The sin and folly of such divisions are manifest, in the first
place, because Christ is incapable of division. As there is one head, there
can be but one body. As there is but one Christ, there can be but one
church. And in the second place, because religious teachers are not centres
of unity to the church. They had not redeemed it, nor did its members
profess allegiance to them in baptism, v. 13. These divisions, therefore,
arose, on the one hand, from a forgetfulness of the common relation which
all Christians bear to Christ; and, on the other, from a misapprehension of
the relation in which believers stand to their religious teachers. Paul
expresses his gratitude that he had not given any occasion for such
misapprehension. He had baptized so few among them, that no man could
suspect him of a desire to make himself the head of the church or the leader
of a party, vs. 14-16.

10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you,
but (that) ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment.
 31

There is but one exhortation in this verse, which is expressed first in

general terms, “that ye all say the same thing;” and is then explained in the
negative form, “that there be no divisions among you;” and then
positively, “that ye be perfectly joined together.”

By the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. out of regard to Christ, Romans
12:1, 15:30; 2 Thessalonians 4:12. Their reverence and love of Christ, and
regard for his authority as their Lord, should induce them to yield
obedience to the apostle’s exhortation. It was not out of respect to him,
but out of regard to Christ they should obey. This renders obedience easy
and elevating. To say the same thing (to< aujto< le>gein) is a phrase of
frequent occurrence to express agreement. It may be so understood here,
and then the following clauses are explanatory. Or, it may be understood in
reference to v. 12, of outward profession. ‘Do not say I am of Paul, and I
of Apollos, but all say the same thing.’ The former explanation appears
the more natural.

And that there be no divisions among you, literally, schisms. The word
(sci>sma) means,
1. A rent, as in a garment, Matthew 9:16.
2. Difference of opinion, John 7:43.
3. Alienation of feeling, or inward separation.
4. In its ecclesiastical sense, it is an unauthorized separation from the
church.
The schisms which existed in Corinth were not of the nature of hostile
sects refusing communion with each other, but such as may exist in the
bosom of the same church, consisting in alienation of feeling and party
strifes.

But (that) ye be perfectly joined together. The original word (katarti>zw)

means to repair, or to mend, Matthew 4:21, to reduce to place, as a
dislocated limb; to render complete, or perfect (a]rtiov); then figuratively,
to restore or set right those in error; to prepare, to render perfect. Hence in
this place the sense may be, ‘That ye be perfect,’ as the Vulgate renders it;
or, ‘that ye be united,’ as in our translation; or, ‘that ye be reduced to
 32
order.’ The context shows that the idea of union is what the apostle
intended. They were not to be divided, but united. This union was to be
both in mind and in judgment (nou~v and gnw>mh). The former term may
refer either to the intellect or feelings. The latter in the New Testament
always means judgment or opinion. When the words are united, the former
is most naturally understood of feeling, a sense in which the word mind is
often used by us. The unity which Paul desired was a union in faith and
love. Considering the relation in which Christians stand to each other as
the members of Christ, dissensions among them are as inconsistent with
their character, as conflict between the members of the human body.

11. For it hath been declared unto the of you, my brethren, by them (which
are of the house) of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

This verse contains the reason of the foregoing exhortation. He urges them
to union because he had heard they were divided. By those of Chloe,
whether the persons referred to were the children or domestics of Chloe is
left undetermined. Chloe was a Christian woman well known to the
Corinthians; whether a member of the church in Corinth whose people had
come to Ephesus where Paul was; or an Ephesian whose family had been
to Corinth, and learned the state of things there, is a matter of conjecture.
All Paul wished was to assure the Corinthians that he had sufficient
evidence of the existence of contentions among them. This word (e]ridev)
strifes, wranglings, explains the nature of the schisms referred to in the
preceding verse. These strifes, as appears from what follows, were about
their religious teachers.

12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of
Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

This explains the nature of these contentions. In almost all the apostolic
churches there were contentions between the Jewish and Gentile converts.
As Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter of the Jews, Galatians
2:8, it is probable that the converts from among the Gentiles claimed Paul
as their leader, and the Jewish converts appealed to the authority of Peter.
It is plain from the contents of this and of the following epistle, that these
contentions were fomented by false teachers, 2 Corinthians 11:13; that
 33
these teachers were Hebrews, 2 Corinthians 11:22, and that they
endeavored to undermine the authority of Paul as an apostle. The two
principal parties in Corinth, therefore, were Gentiles calling themselves the
disciples of Paul, and Jews claiming to be the followers of Peter. The
Gentile converts, however, were not united among themselves. While some
said, we are of Paul; others said, we are of Apollos. As Apollos was an
Alexandrian Jew, distinguished for literary culture and eloquence, it is
probable that the more highly educated among the Corinthian Christians
were his peculiar followers. Apollos is a shortened form of Apollonius, as
Silas is of Silvanus. The first governor of Egypt appointed by Alexander
bore that name; and probably on that account it became in that country so
exceedingly common. As the Judaizers objected to Paul that he was not an
apostle, these followers of Apollos undervalued him as a preacher. He was
neither a philosopher nor a rhetorician after the Grecian school. We shall
find the apostle defending himself against both these classes of objections.
Who those were who said, we are of Christ, it is not so easy to determine.
It is plain that they were as much to blame as the other parties mentioned.
They must therefore have claimed some peculiar relation to Christ which
they denied to their fellow believers, 2 Corinthians 10:7. Whether this
exclusive claim was founded, as some suppose, on the fact that they had
themselves seen and heard Christ; or whether they asserted their superior
and more intimate relation to him on some other ground, is altogether
uncertain. It would appear from the frequency with which Paul speaks of
certain persons in Corinth “glorying in the flesh,” and “in appearance,”
that this party claimed some peculiar external relation to Christ, and that
their views of him were “carnal,” or worldly.

13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in
the name of Paul?

The grounds of our allegiance to Christ, are, first, that he is the Christ, the
Son of the living God; second, that he hath redeemed us; third, that we are
consecrated to him in baptism. All these grounds are peculiar to Christ. To
no other being in the universe do believers stand in the relation which they
all sustain to their common Lord. As, therefore, there is but one Christ, but
one redeemer, but one baptism, Christians cannot be divided without
violating the bond which binds them to Christ and to one another.
 34

Is Christ divided? Of course the answer must be in the negative. As Christ

is incapable of division, as there can be but one Christ, the church cannot
be divided. It is contrary to its nature to be split into hostile parties, just
as it is contrary to the nature of a family to be thus divided. As the head is
one, so are the members.

Was Paul crucified for you? Did Paul redeem you? Were you purchased by
his blood, so as to belong to him? If not, then you are not his, and it is
wrong to say, We are Paul’s. Believers bear no such relation even to
inspired teachers, as to justify their being called by their names. They are
called Christians, because they are the worshippers of Christ, because they
belong to him, and because they are consecrated to him.

Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (eijv to< o]noma), literally, unto
the name, i.e. in reference to Paul, so that he should be the object of your
faith and the one whose name you were to confess. By baptism we are
brought into the number of the disciples and followers of him into whose
name, or in reference to whom, we are baptized. As, therefore, all
Christians are baptized unto Christ, and not unto the apostles, much less
any uninspired teacher, it is Christ whom they should confess, and by his
name they should be called.

14, 15. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

Although it was the duty of the apostles to baptize, Matthew 28:19, yet
Paul rejoiced that it had so happened that he had administered that
ordinance to only a few persons in Corinth, as thus all pretext that he was
making disciples to himself, was taken away. Paul did not consider this a
matter of chance, but of providential direction, and, therefore, a cause of
gratitude. Crispus was the chief ruler of the synagogue in Corinth, whose
conversion is recorded in Acts 18:8. Caius is mentioned in Romans 16:23,
as the host of the apostle.

16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides I know not
whether I baptized any other.
 35

Stephanas was one of the three messengers sent to inform the apostle of
the state of the church in Corinth, and to deliver the letter to which
reference is made, ch. 7:1 comp. 16, 15. 17. Paul says he baptized the
household or family of Stephanas. Under the old dispensation, whenever
any one professed Judaism or entered into covenant with God as one of
his people, all his children and dependents, that is, all to whom he stood in
a representative relation, were included in the covenant and received
circumcision as its sign. In like manner under the gospel, when a Jew or
Gentile joined the Christian church his children received baptism and were
recognized as members of the Christian church. Compare Acts 16:15 and
33.

Besides I know not whether I baptized any other. The nature of inspiration
is to be learnt from the declarations of the Scriptures and from the facts
therein recorded. From these sources we learn that it was an influence
which rendered its recipients infallible, but it did not render them
omniscient. They were preserved from asserting error, but they were not
enabled either to know or to remember all things.

PAUL’S DEFENSE OF HIS MANNER OF PREACHING. VS. 17-31.

The apostle having been led to mention incidentally that he had baptized
very few persons in Corinth, assigns as the reason of that fact that his
great official duty was to preach the gospel. This naturally led him to
speak of the manner of preaching. It was one of the objections urged
against him that he did not preach “with the wisdom of words,” that is,
that he did not preach the doctrines taught by human reason, which he
calls the wisdom of the world. Through the remainder of this, and the
whole of the following chapter, he assigns his reasons for thus renouncing
the wisdom of the world, — and resumes the subject of the divisions
existing in the church of Corinth at the beginning of the third chapter.
1. His first reason for not teaching human wisdom is that God had
pronounced all such wisdom to be folly, vs. 19, 20.
2. Expedience had proved the insufficiency of human wisdom to lead men
to a saving knowledge of God, v. 21.
 36
3. God had ordained the gospel to be the great means of salvation, vs.
21-25.
4. The expedience of the Corinthians themselves showed that it was not
wisdom nor any other human distinction that secured the salvation of
men. Human wisdom could neither discover the method of salvation,
nor secure compliance with its terms when revealed. They were in
Christ (i.e. converted), not because they were wiser, better, or more
distinguished than others, but simply because God had chosen or called
them, vs. 26-30.
The design of God in all this was to humble then so that he who glories
should glory in the Lord. v. 31.

17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with
wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

For indicates the connection. ‘I baptized few, for I was not sent to
baptize, but to preach.’ The commission was, “Go ye into all the world,
and preach the gospel to every creature.” This does not mean that baptism
was not included, but it does mean that baptizing was very inferior to
preaching. It is subordinated in the very form of the commission, “Go ye
therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them,” etc. The main
thing was to make disciples; recognizing them as such by baptism was
subordinate, though commanded. Baptism was a work which the apostles
seem to have generally left to others, Acts 10:48. During the apostolic age,
and in the apostolic form of religion, truth stood immeasurably above
external rites. The apostasy of the church consisted in making rites more
important than truth. The apostle’s manner of speaking of baptism in this
connection as subordinate to preaching is, therefore, a wonder to those
who are disposed unduly to exalt the sacraments, as may be seen in
Olshausen’s remarks on vs. 13-16. We must not infer from this that
baptism is of little importance, or that it may be safely neglected.
Although Paul controverted the Jewish doctrine that circumcision secured
salvation and was necessary to its attainment, he nevertheless admitted
that its advantages were great every way, Romans 3:2. And in the Old
Testament it is expressly said that the uncircumcised man-child should be
cut off from the people, i.e. deprived of the benefits of the theocracy.
While therefore it is unscriptural to make baptism essential to salvation or
 37
a certain means of regeneration, it is nevertheless a dangerous act of
disobedience to undervalue or neglect it.

His preaching Paul describes by saying it was “not with the wisdom of
words,” (oujk ejn sofi>a| lo>gou). So far as the signification of these words
is concerned, the meaning may be,
1. Not with skillful discourse, that is, eloquence.
2. Or, not with philosophical discourse, that is, not in an abstract or
speculative manner, so that the truth taught should be presented in a
philosophical form. According to this view the doctrine taught would
still be the gospel, but the thing rejected and condemned would be
merely the philosophical mode of exhibiting it.
3. The meaning may be, not with a discourse characterized by wisdom;
that is, the contents of which was human wisdom, instead of truths
revealed by God. The context is in favor of the interpretation last
mentioned. In this whole connection the apostle contrasts two kinds of
wisdom. The one he describes as the wisdom of the world, the wisdom
of men, or of the rulers of the world.
By this he means human wisdom, that which has a human origin. This he
pronounces to be folly, and declares it to be entirely inefficacious in the
salvation of men. The other kind of wisdom, he calls the wisdom of God,
i.e. derived from God; the hidden wisdom, consisting in truths which
human reason never could discover. The former he repudiates. He says, he
did not come to preach the teachings of human reason, but the testimony
of God. He was among them in the character, not of a philosopher, but of a
witness. As in what follows the apostle argues to prove that human
wisdom is folly and cannot save men, and gives that as the reason why he
came preaching the doctrine of the cross, it seems plain that this is the
meaning of the passage before us. ‘Christ sent the to preach, not with wise
discourse, that is, not with human wisdom — not as a philosopher, but as
a witness.’ His preaching therefore was the simple exhibition of the truth
which God had revealed.

Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect, i.e. rendered
powerless and inoperative. If Paul in preaching had either substituted
human wisdom for the doctrine of the cross, or had so presented that
 38
doctrine as to turn it into a philosophy, his preaching would have been
powerless. It would lose its divine element and become nothing more than
human wisdom. Whatever obscures the cross deprives the gospel of its
power.

18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but
unto us which are saved, it is the power of God.

The preaching of the cross, or, the doctrine (oJ lo>gov), of the cross, that is,
the doctrine of salvation through the crucifixion of the Son of God as a
sacrifice for the sins of men. This doctrine, though to one class, viz., those
who are lost, i.e. those certainly to perish, foolishness; yet to another
class, viz., those certainly to be saved, it is the power of God. That is, it is
that through which the power of God is manifested and exercised, and
therefore it is divinely efficacious. All the hearers of the gospel are divided
into two classes. To the one, the doctrine of salvation through a crucified
Redeemer appears absurd. They are called “the lost,” not only because
they are certainly to perish, but also because they are in a lost state while
out of Christ, John 3:18. To the other, this doctrine is divinely efficacious
in producing peace and holiness. These are called “the saved,” not only
because they are certainly to be saved, but also because they are now in a
state of salvation. Compare 2 Corinthians 2:15.

This verse contains the reason why Christ sent the apostle to preach, and
why he preached the doctrine of the cross, and not human wisdom. That
reason is, because the doctrine of the cross alone is effectual to salvation.
This proposition he proceeds to establish by a series of arguments
designed to prove that the wisdom of the world cannot save men. His first
argument is derived from the express declaration of the word of God to
this effect.

19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and win bring to
nothing the understanding of the prudent.

This is not to be considered as the citation of any one particular passage of

the Old Testament, so much as an appeal to a doctrine therein clearly
revealed. In a multitude of passages, and in various forms, God had taught
 39
by his prophets the insufficiency of human reason to lead men to the
knowledge of the way of salvation. In Isaiah 29:14, nearly the same words
are used, but with a more limited application. “The wisdom of the wise,”
and “the understanding of the prudent,” are parallel expressions for the
same thing.

20. Where (is) the wise? where (is) the scribe? where (is) the disputer of
this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

This is a challenge to the wise of every class and of every nation to

disprove what he had said. It was too plain to be denied that God had
made foolish the wisdom of this world, i.e. he had showed it to be foolish,
and dealt with it as such. Among the Jews there were three classes of
learned men, distinguished by terms corresponding to those which the
apostle here uses. It is not probable, however, that Paul refers to that
classification, because he is not speaking specially of the Jews. The first
term (sofo>v), wise man, is probably to be taken in a general sense
including that of the two following words. ‘Where is the wise, whether
Jewish scribe or Grecian sophist?’ The word scribe is the common
designation of the learned class among the Jews. It was originally applied
to the secretaries whose business it was to prepare and issue decrees in the
name of the king (2 Samuel 8:17; 20:25; 2 Kings 12:10; 19:2). Afterwards,
and especially in the New Testament, it was used as the designation of
those learned in the law, who were charged not only with its transcription,
but also with its exposition, and at times with its administration. The same
title was given in many of the Asiatic states to the magistrate who
presided over the senate, took charge of the laws, and who read them when
necessary to the peoples Acts 19:35.

Where is the disputer? (suzhthth>v) inquirer, questioner, sophist: the

appropriate designation of the Grecian philosopher. Of this world, or age.
This qualification belongs to all the preceding terms. ‘Where is the wise of
this world, whether scribe or sophist?’

2. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God,
it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
 40
This and the following verses contain the apostle’s second argument in
proof of the insufficiency of human wisdom. The argument is this:
expedience having shown the insufficiency of human wisdom, God set it
aside, and declared it to be worthless, by adopting the foolishness of
preaching as the means of salvation. This argument therefore includes two
distinct proofs. First, that derived from expedience; and secondly, that
derived from God’s having appointed the gospel, as distinguished from
human wisdom, to be the means of saving men.

For after that. It is to be remarked that the word for in Paul’s writings very
often refers to something implied but not expressed in the context; most
commonly it refers to the answer to a preceding question. It is so here.
‘Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? He has, for, etc.’
After that (ejpeidh> ) properly, since. This particle, though in the Greek
writers generally used of time, in the New Testament is almost uniformly
used in a causal sense. This is its meaning here. ‘For, inasmuch as, or
because.’

In the wisdom of God. This means either, in the wise ordination of God, or,
in the midst of the manifestation of the wisdom of God. If the former
interpretation be adopted, the meaning is, that it was a manifestation of
divine wisdom to leave the world for four thousand years to test the
power of human wisdom, that thus its insufficiency might be clearly
demonstrated. The latter interpretation is generally adopted, and gives a
better sense. ‘In the wisdom of God, that is, although surrounded by the
manifestations of the divine wisdom in creation and providence, man failed
to attain any saving knowledge of God.’ The world by (its th~v) wisdom
knew not God. This is not inconsistent with Romans 1:20, where the
apostle says, God’s eternal power and Godhead are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made. In this latter passage Paul speaks
of the revelation which God had made of himself; in the former, of the use
which men had made of that revelation. The revelation was clear, but men,
through their imbecility and perverseness, did not comprehend it. In the
midst of light they continued blind. The fault was in them, and not in the
revelation. They did not like to retain God in their knowledge, Romans
1:28. Besides, sometimes the knowledge of God, in Scripture, means that
speculative knowledge which human reason is adequate to derive from the
 41
works of God, and which renders their idolatry inexcusable; at other times,
it means saving knowledge. Hence it is perfectly consistent to say in the
former sense, that men by wisdom may attain the knowledge of God; and,
in the latter sense, that they cannot attain that knowledge. Paul is here
speaking of the knowledge which is connected with salvation. Such
knowledge the world by wisdom had failed to secure. Therefore, it pleased
God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. “The
foolishness of preaching” means the preaching of foolishness, that is, the
cross. The doctrine of the cross was foolishness in the estimation of men.
God thus put to shame all human wisdom by making a doctrine which the
wise of this world regarded as absurd the means of salvation. This passage
in its connection clearly teaches two great truths; first, that the cross, or
the doctrine of Christ crucified, is the substance of the gospel, that in
which its vitality and power consist; and secondly, that it is the preaching,
or public proclamation (kh>rugma) of that doctrine which is the great
means of salvation. To this all other means, however important, are either
preparatory or subordinate. It is to be remembered, however, that
preaching, in the Scriptural sense of the term, includes the inculcation of
the truth, whether to an individual or to a multitude — whether by the
road side, or in the school, or lecture-room, or the pulpit. Philip, as he rode
in the chariot with the eunuch, “preached to him Jesus,” Acts 8:35.

22, 23. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but
we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the
Greeks foolishness.

This passage is parallel to the preceding. ‘Since the world by wisdom

knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save
them that believe — and since the Jews ask a sign and the Greeks seek
wisdom, we preach, etc.’ That is, since human reason in all its
developments, Jewish or Grecian, had failed, we preach Christ.

The Jews require, or, ask (aijtou~si) a sign. 2 This was characteristic of the
Jews. They required external supernatural evidence as the ground of their
faith. Their constant demand was, “What sign showest thou?” Matthew
12:39. Mark 8:11. John 6:30. To this disposition our Savior referred when
he said, “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there
 42
shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas,” Matthew
16:4. The Greeks, on the other hand, seek after wisdom. They required
rational evidence. They would receive nothing as true which they could not
understand, and see the rational grounds of. These are types of permanent
classes of men.

But we preach Christ crucified. This doctrine met the demands of neither
class. It satisfied neither the expectations of the Jews, nor the requirements
of the Greeks. On the contrary, it was to the Jews a stumbling-block.
They had anticipated in the Messiah a glorious temporal prince, who
should deliver and exalt their nation. To present to them one crucified as a
malefactor as their Messiah, was the greatest possible insult. He was to
them, therefore, a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, Romans 9:33; 1
Peter 2:8. To the Greeks this doctrine was foolishness. Nothing in the
apprehension of rationalists can be more absurd than that the blood of the
cross can remove sin, promote virtue, and secure salvation; or that the
preaching of that doctrine is to convert the world.

24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the
power of God, and the wisdom of God.

The called (klhtoi>) always mean the effectually called, as distinguished

from those who are merely externally invited. There is a twofold call of the
gospel; the one external by the word; the other internal by the Spirit. The
subjects of the latter are designated “the called,” Romans 1:7; 8:28. Jude 1.
Revelation 17:14. Compare Isaiah 48:12. The Jews desired an exhibition of
power; the Greeks sought wisdom: both are found in Christ, and in the
highest degree. He is the power of God and the wisdom of God. In his
person and work there is the highest possible manifestation both of the
divine power and of the divine wisdom. And those who are called not only
see, but experience this. The doctrine of Christ crucified produces effects
on them which nothing short of divine power can accomplish. And it
reveals and imparts to them the true wisdom. It makes them divinely wise;
it makes them holy; it makes them righteous; and it makes them blessed. It
does infinitely more than human wisdom could ever conceive, much less
accomplish. It has already changed the state of the intelligent universe, and
is to be the central point of influence throughout eternity. This is the
 43
doctrine which the wise of this world wish to see ignored or obscured in
behalf of their speculations. Just as the heathen exchange the true God for
birds and beasts and creeping things, and think themselves profound.

25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of
God is stronger than men.

This is a confirmation of what precedes. The gospel is thus efficacious,

because the lowest manifestation of divine wisdom exceeds the highest
results of the wisdom of men; and the lowest exercise of God’s power is
more effectual than all human strength. Or, instead of taking the verse in
this general sense, the foolishness of God, may mean the gospel. The
meaning then is, ‘The doctrine of the cross, though regarded as absurd and
powerless, has more of power and wisdom man any thing which ever
proceeded from man.’

26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the
flesh, not many mighty, not many noble (are called).

The connection is not with the preceding verse but with the whole
preceding context. The apostle introduces a new argument in proof of the
uselessness of human wisdom. The argument is derived from their religious
experience. ‘You see, brethren, it is not the wise who are called.’

Your calling (klh~siv) does not mean mode of life, profession, or station,
as the word vocation often does with us. The Greek word is never used in
this sense in the New Testament, unless 1 Corinthians 7:20 be an
exception. It always refers to the call of God by his word and Spirit. It is
to be so understood here. ‘You see, brethren, your conversion, that not
many wise are converted.’ In this sense we speak of “effectual calling”

Wise after the flesh, i.e. wise with human wisdom. Flesh in Scripture often
means human nature. There are two kinds of wisdom, the one human, the
other divine. There are, therefore, two classes of wise men; those
possessing the wisdom which is from men, and those who have the
wisdom which comes from God. Few of the former class become
 44
Christians; therefore it is not by wisdom that men find out God, which is
what the apostle designs to prove.

Not many mighty, i.e. the great; iJ dunatoi>, those having du>namiv, in the
sense of power and authority. The opposite class is designated as the
weak or uninfluential, see Acts 25:5. Not many noble, i.e. well-born. The
converts to Christianity were not in general from the higher ranks in
society. The things which elevate man in the world, knowledge, influence,
rank, are not the things which lead to God and salvation. As there is no
verb in the original to agree with these nominatives, “the wise,” “the
mighty,” “the noble,” we may either supply the simple substantive verb
are: ‘You see your calling, not many of you are wise, or mighty, or noble;’
or, we may supply, as in our version, the word called, ‘not many wise are
called;’ or, the word chosen, ‘not many wise are chosen, for God hath
chosen, etc.’ The sense remains the same. Human distinctions are
insignificant and inefficacious in the sight of God, who is sovereign in the
distribution of grace.

27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the
wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the
things which are mighty.

In this and the following verses the apostle asserts affirmatively what he
had just stated negatively, “God does not choose the wise, but he chooses
the foolish.’

The foolish things of the world, (ta< mwra< tou~ ko>smou) the foolish portion
of mankind. In this and in the following clauses the neuter is used although
persons are intended, because the reference is indefinite. God hath chosen
the foolish, the weak, the insignificant, etc. Hath chosen. It is implied in
this form of expression, which is repeated for the sake of emphasis, that
as, on the one hand, the wise and the great were not chosen on account of
their wisdom or greatness, so, on the other, the foolish and the weak were
not chosen on account of their want of wisdom or greatness. God chose
whom he pleased. He chose the ignorant that he might confound the wise;
and the weak, that he might confound the mighty. That is, that he might
put them to shame, by convincing them of the little value of the things on
 45
which they prided themselves, and by exalting over them those whom they
despised.

28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God
chosen, (yea) and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are;

The base things, i.e. the base, the ignoble (ta< ajgenh~), those without
family, as opposed to the noble. Things which are despised, i.e. men in
low condition, whom the rich and noble look upon with contempt. Things
which are not, (ta< mh< o]nta) those who are entirely overlooked as though
they had no existence. There is a climax here. God has chosen not only
plebeians, but of the plebeians those who were objects of contempt, and
even those below contempt, too insignificant to be noticed at all. These,
and such as these, does God choose to make kings and priests unto
himself. To bring to nought, (katargh>sh|), literally, that he might bring to
nought. This is a stronger term than that used in the preceding verse, and
here specially appropriate. God brings to nothing the things that are (ta<
o]nta), i.e. those who make their existence known and felt, as opposed to
those who are nothing. It is apparent from the dispensations of grace, that
knowledge, rank, and power do not attract the favor of God, or secure for
their possessors any pre-eminence or preference before him. This should
render the exalted humble, and the humble content.

29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.

The design of God in thus dealing with men, calling the ignorant rather man
the wise, the lowly instead of the great, is that no man should boast before
him. No one can stand in his sight and attribute his conversion or salvation
to his own wisdom, or birth, or station, or to any thing else by which he is
favorably distinguished from his fellow-men.

30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom,
and righteousness, and sanctification and redemption.

To be in Christ Jesus is to be united to him,

1. Representatively, as we were in Adam, Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians
15:22. Vitally, as a branch is in the vine, or a member in the body, John
 46
15:1-7. Consciously and voluntarily by faith, Romans 8:1, et passim.
Of this union with Christ, the apostle teaches us here, first, its origin,
and secondly, its effects. As to its origin, it is of God. Of him ye are in
Christ Jesus. It is (ejx aujtou~ ) of him as the efficient cause. It is to be
referred to him alone that ye are in Christ. Your conversion or saving
union with Christ is not due to yourselves; it is not because you are
wiser, or better, or more diligent than others that you are thus
distinguished. This which is the turning point in theology, and
therefore in religion, is here most explicitly asserted. And it is not only
asserted, but it is declared to be the purpose of God to make it
apparent, and to force all men to acknowledge it. He so dispenses his
grace as to make men see with regard to others, and to acknowledge
with regard to themselves, that the fact that they are in Christ, or true
Christians, is due to him and not to themselves. The effects of this
union, as here stated, are, that Christ is of God (ajpo< Qeou~ ), as the
author, made unto us, 1. Wisdom. Christ is the true wisdom. He is the
Logos, the Revealer, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead,
and all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. No man knoweth the
Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal him, John
1:18. Union with him, therefore, makes the believer truly wise. It
secures the knowledge of God, whose glory is revealed in the face of
Christ, and whom to know is eternal life. All true religious knowledge
is derived from Christ, and it is only those who submit to his teaching
who are wise unto salvation.
2. The second effect of union with Christ, is righteousness and
sanctification (dikaiosu>nh te kai< aJgiasmo<v); these are intimately
united (te kai>) as different aspects of the same thing. Righteousness is
that which satisfies the demands of the law as a rule of justification;
sanctification, or holiness, is that which satisfies the law as a rule of
duty. Christ is both to us. He is our righteousness, because by his
obedience and death he has fully satisfied the demands of justice, so
that we are “the righteousness of God in him,” 2 Corinthians 5:21.
When we stand before the judgment-seat of God, Christ is our
righteousness. He answers for us; he presents his own infinite merit as
the all-sufficient reason for our justification. Romans 3:21, 22; 5:19;
Philippians 3:9. He is also our sanctification. His Spirit dwells in all his
people as the Spirit of holiness, so that they are transformed into his
 47
likeness from glory to glory. Wherever the Spirit dwells there are the
fruits of the Spirit. Acts 26:18. Romans 8:9, 10. Galatians 5:22.
Ephesians 2:5, 10.
3. The third effect is redemption, i.e. deliverance from evil. This term
sometimes includes all the benefits received from Christ. When he is
called our Redeemer he is presented as our deliverer from guilt, from
hell, from sin, from the power of Satan, from the grave.
But when redemption is distinguished from justification and sanctification,
it refers to the final deliverance from evil. The “day of redemption” is the
day when the work of Christ shall be consummated in the perfect salvation
of his people as to soul and body. Romans 8:23. Ephesians 1:14, 4:30.
Hebrews 9:12.

Those, then, who are in Christ have divine wisdom or the saving
knowledge of God and of divine things; they have a righteousness which
secures their justification. There is no condemnation to those that are in
Christ Jesus, Romans 8:1. They are renewed after the image of God, and
shall finally be presented without spot or blemish before the presence his
glory. And they are partakers of eternal redemption or full deliverance
from all the evils of sin, and are introduced into the glorious liberty of the
children of God. These infinite blessings can be obtained only through
Christ. Union with him is the necessary, and the only necessary, condition
of our participation of these blessings. And our union with Christ is of
God. It is not of ourselves, by our own wisdom, goodness, or strength, but
solely by his grace; and therefore must be sought as an unmerited favor.

31. That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the
Lord.

That, i.e. in order that. The design of God in making wisdom,

righteousness, sanctification, and redemption dependent on union with
Christ, and union with Christ dependent, not on our merit, but on his own
good pleasure, is that we should glory only in him; that is, that our
confidence should be in him and not in ourselves, and that all the glory of
our salvation should be ascribed to him and not to us. Such being the
design of God in the work of redemption, it is obvious we must conform
 48
to it in order to be saved. We must seek wisdom, righteousness,
sanctification, and redemption only in Christ; and we must seek union
with Christ as an undeserved favor.

The passage quoted is probably Jeremiah 9:23, 24, the sense of which is
condensed. In quoting the Old Testament the apostle frequently cites the
words as they stand, without so modifying them as to make them
grammatically cohere with the context. As in the Septuagint, which he
quotes, the imperative mood is used, the apostle here retains it, and instead
of saying, ‘In order that he who glories should glory in the Lord,’ he says
‘That, He that glories let him glory in the Lord.’ Comp. 2:9. Romans 15:3.
 49

CHAPTER II
Continues his defense of his mode of preaching. In vs. 1-5 he shows that he
acted on the principles set forth in the preceding paragraph. In vs. 6-9 he
shows that the gospel is the true wisdom. The source of this knowledge, as
externally revealed as a spiritually apprehended, is the Holy Spirit, vs. 10-16.

CONTINUATION OF HIS DEFENSE OF HIS MODE OF

PREACHING VS. 1-16

As God had determined to save men not by human wisdom but by the
gospel, Paul, when he appeared in Corinth, came neither as an orator nor as
a philosopher, but simply as a witness, vs. 1, 2. He had no confidence in
himself, but relied for success exclusively on the demonstration of the
Spirit, vs. 3, 4. The true foundation of faith is not reason, but the
testimony of God, v. 5.

Though what he preached was not the wisdom of men, it was the wisdom
of God, undiscoverable by human reason, vs. 6-9. The revealer of this
divine wisdom is the Holy Ghost, he alone being competent to make this
revelation, because he only knows the secret purposes of God, vs. 10-12.
In communicating the knowledge thus derived from the Spirit, the apostle
used words taught by the Spirit, v. 13. Though the knowledge
communicated was divine, and although communicated in appropriate
language, it was not with excellency of speech;’ or with the word
declaring, ‘I came not declaring with the spiritual,’ vs. 14-16.

1. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech
or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

And I, i.e. Accordingly I ‘In accordance with the clearly revealed purpose
of God to reject the wisdom of the world and to make the cross the means
of salvation.’

Excellency of speech or of wisdom. As speech and wisdom (lo>gov and

 50
sofi>a) are here distinguished, the former probably refers to the manner or
form, and the latter to the matter of his preaching. It was neither as a
rhetorician nor as a philosopher that he appeared among them. This clause
may be connected either with the word came, ‘I came not with excellency
of speech;’ or with the word declaring, ‘I came not declaring with
excellency of speech, etc.’ The former mode is generally preferred, not
only because of the position of the words in the sentence, but also because
of the sense. Paul does not mean to say merely that he did not declare the
testimony of God in a rhetorical or philosophical manner; but that what he
declared was not the wisdom of men, but the revelation of God.

The testimony of God may mean either the testimony which Paul bore
concerning God, or God’s own testimony which Paul bore concerning
God, or God’s own testimony, i.e. what God had revealed and testified to
be true. “The testimony of God” is, in this sense, the gospel, as in 2
Timothy 1:8. The latter interpretation best suits the connection, as
throughout these chapters Paul contrasts what reason teaches with what
God teaches. He did not appear as a teacher of human wisdom, but as
announcing what God had revealed.

2. For I determined not to know any thing 3 among you, save Jesus Christ,
and him crucified.

For is confirmatory. ‘I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom,

for I determined, etc.’ The negative particle in this sentence may be
connected either with the word to know, ‘I determined not to know;’ or
with the word determined, ‘I did not determine, i.e. I had no intention or
purpose.’ The position of the words (ouj ga<r e]krina> ) is in favor of the
latter interpretation. The meaning in either case is the same.

Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Paul’s only design in going to Corinth was
to preach Christ; and Christ not as a teacher, or as an example, or as a
perfect man, or as a new starting point in the development of the race —
all this would be there philosophy; but Christ as crucified, i.e. as dying for
our sins. Christ as a propitiation was the burden of Paul’s preaching. It has
been well remarked that Jesus Christ refers to the person of Christ, and
him crucified, to his work; which constitute the sum of the gospel.
 51

3. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

I came to you, ejgeno>mhn pro<v ujma~v, I came to you and was with you, see
John, 1:2. weakness of which he here speaks was not bodily weakness; for
although he elsewhere speaks of himself as weak in body, 2 Corinthians
10:10, and as suffering under bodily infirmity, Galatians 4:14, yet here the
whole context shows he refers to his state of mind. It was not in the
consciousness of strength, self confident and self-relying, that he appeared
among them, but as oppressed with a sense of his weakness and
insufficiency. He had a work to do which he felt to be entirely above his
powers.

In fear and trembling, i.e. in anxiety, or solicitude of mind arising out of a

sense of his insufficiency, and of the infinite importance of his work, 2
Corinthians 7:15. Philippians 2:12. Ephesians 6:5.

4. And my speech and my preaching (was) not with enticing words of

man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.

My speech and preaching (lo>gov and kh>rugma). If these terms are to be

distinguished, the former may refer to his private, and the latter to his
public instructions; or, the former is general, including all modes of
address, and the latter specific, limited to public discourse. ‘My
instructions in general, and my public preaching in particular.’ Both terms,
however, may designate the same thing under different aspects.

His mode of preaching is described, first, negatively, and then positively.

It was not with the enticing words of man’s wisdom, i.e. the persuasive
words which human wisdom would suggest. In his endeavors to bring men
to the obedience of the faith, he did not rely upon his own skill in
argument or persuasion. This is the negative statement. Positively, his
preaching was in (or with, e<n; the preposition is the same in both clauses,
though rendered by our translators in the former, with, and in the latter, in)
the demonstration of the Spirit and of power. This may mean, ‘The
demonstration of the powerful Spirit;’ or, ‘The demonstration of the Spirit
and of (miraculous) power;’ referring to the twofold evidence or proof of
 52
the gospel, viz., the internal influence of the Spirit, and the external
evidence of miracles. The word, (du>namiv), rendered power, often means
miraculous power, but as such cannot be its meaning in the following
verse, it is not probable it was intended to have that sense here. The
phrase probably means ‘The demonstration of which the Spirit is the
author, and which is characterized by power;’ so that the sense is, the
powerful demonstration of the Spirit.

Demonstration (ajpo>deixiv) setting forth, exhibition of proof. Paul relied,

therefore, for success, not on his skill in argument or persuasion, nor upon
any of the resources of human wisdom, but on the testimony which the
Spirit bore to the truth. The Holy Ghost demonstrated the gospel to be
true.

5. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power
of God.

That, i.e. in order that. The design of the apostle in acting as stated in the
preceding verse, was that the faith of his hearers might not rest upon
human reason, but on the testimony of God. It might have been easy for
him to argue the Corinthians into a conviction of the truth of the Gospel,
by appealing to its superiority to heathenism and to the evidence of its
divine origin afforded by prophecy and miracles. He might have exhibited
the folly of idolatry, and the absurdity of pagan rites and ceremonies, and
convinced them of the historical truth of Christianity. The conviction thus
produced would be rational and important; but it would not be saving
faith. Faith founded on such evidence is merely speculative. The true
foundation of faith, or rather, the foundation of true faith, is the power of
God. This is explained by what he had before called “the demonstration of
the Spirit.” That exercise of divine power, therefore, to which he refers as
the ground of faith, is the powerful operation of the Spirit, bearing witness
with and by the truth in our hearts. A faith which is founded on the
authority of the church, or upon arguments addressed to the
understanding, or even on the moral power of the truth as it affects the
natural conscience, such as Felix had, is unstable and inoperative. But a
faith founded on the demonstration of the Spirit is abiding, infallible, and
works by love and purifies the heart.
 53

In these verses, therefore, we are taught,

1. That the proper method to convert men in any community, Christian
or Pagan, is to preach or set forth the truth concerning the person and
work of Christ. Whatever other means are used must be subordinate
and auxiliary, designed to remove obstacles, and to gain access for the
truth to the mind, just as the ground is cleared of weeds and brambles
in order to prepare it for the precious seed.
2. The proper state of mind in which to preach the gospel is the opposite
of self-confidence or carelessness. The gospel should be preached with
a sense of weakness and with great anxiety and solicitude.
3. The success of the gospel does not depend on the skill of the preacher,
but on the demonstration of the Spirit.
4. The foundation of saving faith is not reason, i.e. not arguments
addressed to the understanding, but the power of God as exerted with
and by the truth upon the heart.

6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the
wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought.

Paul had in the preceding chapter, vs. 17-31, asserted the insufficiency of
human wisdom, and in vs. 1-5 of this chapter, he had said he was not a
teacher of human wisdom. Was it to be inferred from this that he despised
knowledge, that he was an illiterate contemner of letters, or that he taught
nonsense? Far from it; he taught the highest wisdom. It is plain from this
whole discussion, that by the wisdom of the world, Paul means that
knowledge of God and divine things which men derive from reason. It is
also plain that what he says of the worthlessness of that knowledge has
reference to it as a means of salvation. The objection urged against him
was, that he did not teach philosophy. His answer is, philosophy cannot
save men. Whatever may be its value within its own sphere and for its
own ends, it is worse than useless as a substitute for the gospel. He was
not for banishing philosophy from the schools, but from the pulpit. Let
the dead bury the dead; but do not let them pretend to impart life.

Howbeit, nevertheless, i.e. ‘although we do not teach human wisdom, we

 54
teach the true wisdom.’ Among them that are perfect (ejn toi~v telei>oiv)
i.e. the mature, the full grown, the competent. The ejn here is not redundant
as though the sense were to the perfect; but has its proper force among.
Among one class of men the doctrine which he preached was regarded as
foolishness, but among another it was seen to be divine wisdom. Who are
meant by the perfect? There are two answers to this question. Some say
they were the advanced or mature Christians as distinguished from the
babes in Christ. Others say, they were believers as opposed to
unbelievers; those taught by the Spirit and thus enabled to understand the
truth, as opposed to the unrenewed. According to this view, Paul means to
say that the gospel, although foolishness to the Greek, was the highest
wisdom in the estimation of the truly enlightened. In favor of this view of
the passage, and in opposition to the other, it may be argued,
1. That those who regarded Paul’s doctrine as foolishness were not the
babes in Christ, but the unrenewed, “the wise of this world;”
consequently those to whom it was wisdom were not advanced
Christians, but believers as such. Throughout the whole context, the
opposition is between “the called” or converted, and the unconverted,
and not between one class of believers and another class.
2. If “the perfect” here means advanced Christians as distinguished from
babes in Christ, men the wisdom which Paul preached was not the
gospel as such, but its higher doctrines. But this cannot be, because it
is the doctrine of the cross, of Christ crucified, which he declares to be
the power of God and the wisdom of God, 1:24. And the description
given in the following part of this chapter of the wisdom here intended,
refers not to the higher doctrines of the gospel but to the gospel itself.
The contrast is between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God,
and not between the rudimental and the higher doctrines of the gospel.
Besides, what are these higher doctrines which Paul preached only to the
elite of the church? No one knows. Some say one thing, and some another.
But there are no higher doctrines than those taught in this epistle and in
those to the Romans and Ephesians, all addressed to the mass of the
people. The New Testament makes no distinction between (pi>stiv and
gnw~siv) higher and lower doctrines. It does indeed speak of a distinction
between milk and strong meat, but that is a distinction, not between kinds
of doctrine, but between one mode of instruction and another. In
 55
catechisms designed for children the church pours out all the treasures of
her knowledge, but in the form of milk, i.e. in a form adapted to the
weakest capacities. For all these reasons we conclude that by “the perfect”
the apostle means the competent, the people of God as distinguished from
the men of the world; and by wisdom, not any higher doctrines, but the
simple gospel, which is the wisdom of God as distinguished from the
wisdom of men.

The apostle describes this wisdom, first negatively, by saying it is not the
wisdom of this world, or, wisdom not of this world, i.e. it belongs not to the
world, and is not attained by the men of the world. Nor of the princes of
this world. This designation includes all who take the first rank among
men; men of influence, whether for their wisdom, birth, or power. He does
not refer exclusively to magistrates, or princes, in the restricted sense of
that term. This seems plain from the connection, and from what follows in
v. 8. Who come to nought, i.e. whom it is God’s purpose to confound, as
taught above, 1:28.

7. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, (even) the hidden

(wisdom), which God ordained before the world unto our glory.

Having in v. 6 stated what this wisdom is not, he here states what it is. It
is, first, the wisdom of God; secondly, it is mysterious, or hidden; thirdly,
it is a system of truth which God from eternity had determined to reveal
for the salvation of his people. In other words, it is the revelation of the
counsels of eternity in reference to the redemption of man.

The wisdom of God, i.e. the wisdom derived from God; which he has
revealed, as distinguished from any form of knowledge of human origin. In
a mystery. The word mystery always means something into which men
must be initiated; something undiscoverable by human reason. Whether its
being undiscoverable arises from its lying in the future, or because hid in
the unrevealed purposes of God, or from its own nature as beyond our
comprehension, is not determined by the signification of the word, but is
to be learned from the context. The most natural connection of the words
here is with what precedes, “wisdom in a mystery,” for mysterious, or
hidden wisdom, as is immediately explained by what follows. As there is
 56
no connecting article (between sofi>an and musthri>w| ) in the original,
some prefer connecting this clause with the verb. ‘We speak in a mystery,’
i.e. as declaring a mystery or matter of revelation.

Which God before the world (pro< tw~n aijwn> wn), before the ages, i.e.
before time, or from eternity, preordained to our glory — predetermined
in reference to our glory. The word glory is often used from all the benefits
of salvation. It includes all the excellence and blessedness which Christ has
secured for his people, Romans 5:2. The idea that the scheme of
redemption, which the apostle here calls the wisdom of God, was from
eternity formed in the divine mind, far out of the reach of human
penetration, and has under the gospel been made known for the salvation
of men, is one often presented by the apostle, Romans 16:25, 26.
Ephesians 3:9.

8. Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known (it),
they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Which refers to wisdom, and not to glory; because the former, and not the
latter, is the subject of discourse. ‘Which wisdom none of the princes, i.e.
the great men, of this world knew.’ The reference is here principally to the
rulers of the Jews, the authors of the crucifixion of Christ, and the
representatives of the class to which they belonged. It was the world in its
princes who rejected Christ.

Lord of glory is a title of divinity. It means, possessor of divine excellence.

“Who is the King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory,”
Psalms 24:10. Acts 7:2. James 2:1. Ephesians 1:17. The person crucified,
therefore, was a divine person. Hence the deed was evidence of
inconceivable blindness and wickedness. It was one that could only be
done through ignorance. “And now, brethren,” said the apostle Peter to the
Jews, “I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers,”
Acts 3:17. The fact that the princes of this world were so blind as not to
see that Christ was the Lord of glory, Paul cites as proof of their ignorance
of the wisdom of God. Had they known the one, they would have known
the other.
 57
This passage illustrates a very important principle or usage of Scripture.
We see that the person of Christ may be designated from his divine nature,
when what is affirmed of him is true only of his human nature. The Lord
of Glory was crucified; the Son of God was born of a woman; he who was
equal with God humbled himself to be obedient unto death. In like manner
we speak of the birth or death of a man without meaning that the soul is
born or dies; and the Scriptures speak of the birth and death of the Son of
God, without meaning that the divine nature is subject to these changes. It
is also plain that to predicate ignorance, subjection, suffering, death, or any
other limitation of the Son of God, is no more inconsistent with the
divinity of the person so designated, than to predicate birth and death of a
man, is inconsistent with the immateriality and immortality of the human
soul. Whatever is true either of the soul or body may be predicated of a
man as a person; and whatever is true of either the divine or human nature
of Christ may be predicated of Christ as a person. We need not hesitate
therefore to say with Paul, the Lord of glory was crucified; or even, in
accordance with the received text in Acts 20:28, “God purchased the
church with his blood.” The person who died was truly God, although the
divine nature no more died than the soul of man does when the breath
leaves his body.

9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have
entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them
that love him.

The meaning of this verse is plain, although there are several difficulties
connected with it. Paul had said, he preached the hidden wisdom of God,
which none of the princes of this world knew; he taught what no eye hath
seen, nor ear heard, nor heart conceived. That is, he preached truth
undiscoverable by human reason. To enter into the heart means to occur to
the mind. Compare in the Hebrew, Isaiah 65:17.

The first difficulty connected with this verse is a grammatical one, which
does not appear in our version because of the freedom of the translation.
Literally the passage reads, ‘What no eye saw, and no ear heard, and no
heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him —.’ The
sentence is incomplete. This difficulty may be met either by a reference to
 58
the usage referred to in the note on the last verse of the preceding chapter,
v. 31, the custom of the apostles to quote passages from the Old
Testament without weaving them grammatically into their own discourses.
Or, we may supply, as many do, the word (lalou~men) ‘we speak what
God hath prepared for those who love him.’ Or this verse may be
connected with what follows: ‘What eye hath not seen — what (namely)
God hath prepared for his people, he hath revealed to us by his Spirit.’ —
The first of these explanations is generally adopted and is the most
satisfactory.

The second difficulty relates to the passage quoted. As the formula, “As it
is written,” is never used by the apostles except in the citation of the
canonical books of the Old Testament, it cannot be admitted that Paul
intended to quote either some book now lost, or some apocryphal writing.
If it be assumed that he intended to quote Isaiah 64:4, the difficulty is
twofold, first, the language or words are different, and secondly, the sense
is different. Isaiah 64:4, (or 3 in the Hebrew) is literally translated by Dr.
J. A. Alexander, is: “And from eternity they have not heard, they have not
perceived by the ear, the eye hath not seen, a God beside thee (who) will
do for (one) waiting for him.” The idea is, that men had never known any
other God than Jehovah who did, or could do, what he threatened to do.
The Septuagint expresses the same idea. The meaning in Isaiah as
connected with what precedes, seems to be that the reason why such
fearful things as had been predicted were to be expected from Jehovah is,
that he alone had proved himself able to perform them. To get over this
difficulty some propose a different interpretation of the passage in the
prophet. By connecting it with what follows, and by taking the word God
in the vocative, the sense may be, ‘From eternity they have not heard, nor
perceived by the ear, eye hath not seen, O God, without thee, (i.e. without
a revelation) what he, (or, by change of person) what thou hast prepared
for those that wait for thee.’ This is the version given in the Vulgate, and
brings the passage into harmony with the apostle’s quotation.

Others, assuming the first-mentioned interpretation of the passage in

Isaiah to be the true one, consider the apostle as using scriptural language
without intending to give the sense of the original. This we often do, and it
is not unfrequently done in the New Testament, Romans 10:18. As it is
 59
written is not, in this case, the form of quotation, but is rather equivalent to
saying, ‘To use the language of Scripture.’

A third explanation of this difficulty is, that the apostle did not intend to
quote any one passage of Scripture, but to appeal to its authority for a
clearly revealed truth. It is certainly taught in the Old Testament that the
human mind cannot penetrate into the counsels of God; his purposes can
only be known by a supernatural revelation. This is the truth for which the
apostle cites the authority of the Old Testament. There is, therefore, not
the slightest ground for imputing failure of memory, or an erroneous
interpretation to the inspired apostle.

10. But God hath revealed (them) unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

What was undiscoverable by human reason, God hath revealed by his

Spirit. Unto us, i.e. unto those to whom this revelation, was made, viz.
“the holy apostles and prophets,” Ephesians 3:5. This revelation was
made by the Spirit, for he alone is competent to make it; for he alone
searches the deep things of God. Searches, i.e. explores, accurately and
thoroughly knows. The word does not express the process of
investigation, but rather its results, viz., profound knowledge. Thus God is
said to search the hearts of the children of men, to intimate that there is
nothing in man that escapes his notice, Romans 8:27. Revelation 2:23. So
there is nothing in God unknown to the Spirit. The deep things, i.e. depths
of God, the inmost recesses, as it were, of his being, perfections and
purposes. The Spirit, therefore, is fully competent to reveal that wisdom
which had for ages been hid in God. This passage proves at once the
personality and the divinity of the Holy Ghost. His personality, because
intelligent activity is ascribed to him; he searches; his divinity, because
omniscience is ascribed to him; he knows all that God knows.

11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the Spirit of man
which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit
of God.
 60
This verse is designed to illustrate two points: First, as no one knows the
thoughts of a man but the man himself, so no one knows the thoughts of
God, but God himself. Therefore no one but a divine person is competent
to make a revelation of the thoughts and purposes of God. Second, as
every man does know his own thoughts, so the Spirit of God knows the
thoughts of God. His knowledge of what is in God is analogous to that
which we have of the contents of our own consciousness. The analogies of
scripture, however, are not to be pressed beyond the point which they are
intended to illustrate. The point to be illustrated here is, the knowledge of
the Spirit. He knows what is in God, as we know what is in ourselves. It is
not to be inferred from this that the Spirit of God bears in other points the
same relation to God, that our spirits do to us.

12. Now we have received, not the Spirit of the world, but the Spirit which
is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

The apostle had set forth two sources of knowledge, the one, human; the
other, divine; the one, the informing principle which is in man; the other,
the informing principle which is of God. And he asserts that the source of
that wisdom or knowledge which he communicated, was not the former,
but the latter. It was not human reason, but the Spirit of God. The Spirit of
the world does not here mean a worldly disposition or temper; but Spirit is
that which knows and teaches. The Spirit of the world is therefore a
periphrase for reason, which is the principle of knowledge in men. When
Paul says he had not received that Spirit, he means that human reason was
not the source of the knowledge which he communicated. The Spirit which
is of God, is the Holy Spirit as proceeding from him and sent by him as the
instructor of men. To receive the Spirit is to be the subject of his influence.
It, therefore, depends upon the context and on the nature of the influences
spoken of, who are intended by those who receive the Spirit. Here the
whole connection shows that the apostle is speaking of revelation and
inspiration; and therefore must mean we apostles, (or Paul himself,) and
not we Christians.

That, i.e. in order that, we might know the things freely given to us of God,
i.e. the things graciously revealed by God. This clause does not refer to
inward spiritual blessings now enjoyed by believers, nor to the future
 61
blessedness of the saints, except so far as these are included in the general
subject of Paul’s preaching. The connection is with v. 10. ‘What human
reason could not discover, God hath revealed to us apostles, in order that
we might know what he has thus graciously communicated.’ The subject is
the wisdom of God, the gospel, as distinguished from the wisdom of the
world. This is clear both from what precedes and from what follows.

13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things
with spiritual.

Which things; the things revealed by the Spirit. We also speak. We do not
only know, we also communicate the things which God has revealed. How
is this done? What language did the apostle use in communicating what he
had received by divine revelation? He answers, according to his usual
method, first, negatively; and then, positively. It was not done “in the
words which man’s wisdom teacheth.” This includes two things. The
words used by the apostle were neither such as the skill of the rhetorician
would suggest, nor such as his own mind, uninfluenced by the Spirit of
God, suggested. The affirmative statement is, that the words used were
taught by the Holy Ghost. This is verbal inspiration, or the doctrine that
the writers of the Scriptures were controlled by the Spirit of God in the
choice of the words which they employed in communicating divine truth.
This has been stigmatized as “the mechanical theory of inspiration,”
degrading the sacred penmen into there machines. It is objected to this
doctrine that it leaves the diversity of style which marks the different
portions of the Bible, unaccounted for. But, if God can control the
thoughts of a man without making him a machine, why cannot he control
his language? And why may he not render each writer, whether poetical or
prosaic, whether polished or rude, whether aphoristic or logical, infallible
in the use of his characteristic style? If the language of the Bible be not
inspired, then we have the truth communicated through the discoloring and
distorting medium of human imperfection. Paul’s direct assertion is that
the words which he used, were taught by the Holy Ghost.

Comparing spiritual things with spiritual; or rather, joining spiritual things

to spiritual words, or, explaining the things of the Spirit in the words of the
 62
Spirit. For the use of sugkri>nein in the sense of interpreting or
explaining, see Genesis 40:8; 16:41; 12:15. Daniel 5:12, in the LXX. This
interpretation is demanded by the connection. The apostle had said that
the truths which he taught were revealed by the Spirit; and that the words
which he used were taught by the Spirit, which he sums up by saying, he
explained spiritual things in spiritual words. This view of the passage is
perfectly consistent with the signification of the words. The original word
(sugkri>nw) means not only mentally to combine and hence to compare,
but also to join together; and also to explain. It is used in the Septuagint to
express the act of interpreting dreams or enigmas. The clause in question
may, therefore, be translated either, combining spiritual things with
spiritual words; or, explaining the one by the other. Besides, the word
spiritual (pneumatikoi~v) which has no substantive connected with it,
most naturally agrees with words (lo>goiv) understood, which immediately
precedes.

The other interpretation, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, whether

it means comparing the Old Testament with the New, as some say; or, as
others understand it, comparing one portion of the Spirit’s teaching with
another, is inconsistent with the context. Much less can be said in favor of
a third interpretation of this clause adopted by many, who understand the
apostle to say, he explains spiritual things to spiritual persons. This
anticipates what follows.

14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know (them), because they
are spiritually discerned.

Although the things of the Spirit, that is, the truths of his word, are so
clearly revealed; and although they have been communicated in language
taught by the Spirit, yet, by a certain class of men, they are rejected. That
is, they are not believed, appreciated, and obeyed. This class of men is
called natural. The meaning of this term cannot be determined by the there
signification of the word (yuciko>v ), for it signifies both sensual (i.e. under
the influence of the lower animal principles of our nature), and also
natural, i.e. under the influence of what belongs to the nature of man as it
now exists, as distinguished from the Spirit of God. Many commentators
 63
say that the (yucikoi> ) natural are the sensual, and the opposite class the
(pneumatikoi> ) spiritual are the intellectual, the rational, those under the
influence of the (pne<u~ma) Spirit in the sense of the higher, as distinguished
from the lower, principles of our nature. According to this view, Paul
means to say, that although sensual men do not receive the things of the
Spirit, intellectual men do. This interpretation, however, cannot be correct.
1. Because it gives a meaning to the passage not only inconsistent with
the direct assertion of the apostle, but opposed to the whole drift and
design of his argument. He not only declares that it was not the wise,
the refined and cultivated who received the gospel — but his whole
object is to prove that the reason of man, or man in the highest
development of his nature, can neither discover “the things of the
Spirit,” nor receive them when revealed. It is of God, and not because
of their superior culture or refinement, that men are in Christ, 1:30.
These things are hid from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto
babes, Matthew 11:25:
2. Because the word spiritual, when used in the New Testament of
persons, never means intellectual. It always means one under the
influence of the Holy Spirit. It therefore must have that meaning here.
3. The very distinction designed to be expressed here and elsewhere by
the terms natural and spiritual, is that between nature and grace,
between the natural and supernatural, James 3:15, Jude 19.
4. The reason assigned why the natural man does not receive the things of
the Spirit, viz., because “they are spiritually discerned,” does not mean
‘because they are rationally discerned,’ and therefore it is not the want
of due cultivation of the reason that characterizes the natural man, but
the want of the Spirit. By natural man, therefore, we must understand
the unrenewed man; the man under the influence of human nature, as
distinguished from those who are under the influence of the Holy
Spirit.
The natural or unrenewed man does not receive the things of the Spirit. As
the things which the Holy Ghost has revealed address themselves not only
to the intellect as true, but to the conscience as obligatory and to the
affections as excellent and lovely, not to receive them, is not to recognize,
in our inward experience, their truth, authority, and excellence.
 64
For they are foolishness unto them. The word (mwro>v) foolish, as an
adjective, means in Greek, dull, insipid, tasteless; as a substantive, one that
is dull, or stupid; that is, one on whom truth, duty and excellence do not
produce their proper effect. Foolishness (mwri>a), is that which is to us
absurd, insipid, powerless. When, therefore, it is said that the things of the
Spirit are foolishness to the natural man, it means that they are to him
absurd, insipid and distasteful.

And he cannot know them. To know is to discern the nature of any thing,
whether as true, or good, or beautiful. This is in accordance with the
constant usage of scripture. To know God is to discern his truth and
excellence; to know the truth is to apprehend it as true and good. The wise
are the good, that is, those who discern the truth and excellence of divine
things. The fools are the wicked, those who are insensible to truth and
goodness. What, therefore, the apostle here affirms of the natural or
unrenewed man is, that he cannot discern the truth, excellence, or beauty of
divine things. He cannot do it. It is not simply that he does not do it; or
that he will not do it, but he cannot. We do not say of a clown that he will
not discern the truth, excellence, and beauty of a poem. The difficulty is
not merely in his will but in his whole inward state. The thing is
foolishness to him. So the scriptures do not say of the natural man merely
that he will not discern the things of the Spirit, because the difficulty in his
case is not in the will alone, but in his whole inward state. He cannot know
them. And the reason is,

Because they are spiritually discerned. That is, because they are discerned
through the Spirit. Therefore those who have not the Spirit cannot discern
them. If the effect of sin on the human soul is to make it blind to the truth,
excellence and beauty of divine things; if, as the apostle asserts, the
natural, or unrenewed, man is in such a state that the things of the Spirit
are foolishness to him, absurd, insipid and distasteful, then it follows that
he can discern them only through the Spirit. His inward state must be
changed by the influence of the Spirit before he can apprehend the truth
and excellence of the gospel. There must be congeniality between the
perceiver and the thing perceived. Only the pure in heart can see God. If
our gospel be hid, says the apostle, it is hid to them that are lost. The only
hope of the unrenewed, therefore, is in doing as the blind did in the days of
 65
Christ. They must go to him for spiritual discernment; and those who go
to him he will in no wise cast out.

15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no
man.

To judge here means to discern, to appreciate, and thus pass judgment

upon. As the original word is the same in this as in the preceding verse,
there is no good reason why the translation should vary. The spiritual man
discerns the things which are spiritually discerned, though he himself is not
discerned or properly appreciated by any natural man. The all things here
spoken of are limited by the context to the things of the Spirit. It is not of
the officers of the church only, nor of the church collectively, but of each
and every man in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, that the apostle affirms
this ability to discern the truth, excellence and beauty of divine things. It is
as impossible that one man should discern for another what is true and
good, as that one man should see for another. We must see for ourselves or
not at all. The right of private judgment in matters of religion, is
inseparable from the indwelling of the Spirit. Those who can see, have the
right to see. It is the office of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth, to open
our eyes to discern it in its true nature, and to feel its power. It is on this
demonstration of the Spirit, as taught above, that saving faith is founded.
And as this demonstration is granted to every one who has the Spirit, the
faith of the Christian is founded neither on the wisdom of men nor on the
authority of the church, and is subject to neither.

Yet he himself is judged of no man. This again is limited by the context. He

is appreciated by no man who has not the Spirit. Paul afterwards says it
was to him a small matter to be judged by man’s judgment, 4:3. He is not
here speaking of the legitimate subjection of the believer to his brethren;
for he elsewhere teaches that those who have the Spirit may sit in
judgment on those who profess to be spiritual, and determine how far they
are really led by the Spirit. And he gives the rule by which that judgment is
to be directed, 5:9-12; 12:3. Galatians 1:8. If any man profess to be
spiritual, and yet does what the Spirit in his word forbids, or denies what
the Spirit teaches, we know that he deceives himself, and that the truth is
not in him. We must try the spirits, whether they be of God. This is true,
 66
and is perfectly consistent with what the apostle here says, which only
means that the spiritual man cannot be discerned or estimated aright by
those who are not spiritual.

16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?
But we have the mind of Christ.

This is a confirmation of what precedes. No one can judge a spiritual man,

for that would be to judge the Lord. The Lord had revealed certain
doctrines. The spiritual discern those doctrines to be true. For any man to
pronounce them false, and to judge those who held them, supposes he is
able to teach the Lord. As no one can do this, no one can judge those who
have the mind of Christ, that is, those whom Christ by his Spirit has
taught the truth. Syllogistically stated, the argument would stand thus: No
one can instruct the Lord. We have the mind of the Lord. Therefore no one
can instruct or judge us. The first member of this syllogism is expressed in
the language of Isaiah 40:15, according to the Septuagint. The philosophers
of Greece and the scribes among the Jews had sat in judgment upon Paul,
and pronounced his preaching foolishness. He tells them they were not
competent judges. The natural man cannot discern the things of the Spirit,
and is incompetent to judge those whom the Spirit has taught. As what we
teach is the mind of the Lord, to condemn our doctrine, or to judge us as
the teachers of those doctrines, is to condemn the Lord.

What in the Old Testament is said of Jehovah is often in the New

Testament applied to Christ. This is the case here. Who hath known the
mind of the Lord? means, who hath known the mind of Jehovah? We have
the mind of Christ, therefore, means, we have the mind of Jehovah. What is
true of the one is true of the other. The same person who is revealed in the
New Testament as the Son of God, was revealed of old as Jehovah. This
teaches how firm a foundation the believer has for his faith, and how
impossible it is for any one taught by the Spirit to give up his convictions
to the authority of men.
 67

CHAPTER III.
Transition from the defense of his mode of preaching to the subject of their
divisions, vs. 1-5. The true relation of ministers to the church as servants,
and not party leaders, vs. 7-23.

REPROOF OF THE CORINTHIANS FOR THEIR DISSENSIONS

ABOUT THEIR RELIGIOUS TEACHERS. VS. 1-23.

The apostle resumes the subject of the contentions in the church of

Corinth. He passes to that subject from the defense of his mode of
preaching by a natural association. One of the objections against him was,
that his preaching was too simple. He answers, he could not make it
otherwise, because they were there babes in Christ. The proof of their
being in this infantile or carnal state was that strifes and divisions existed
among them; one saying, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos, vs.
1-4.

As their dissentions had reference to their religious teachers, the apostle

endeavors to correct the evil by presenting the ministerial office in its true
light:
1. Ministers were not heads of schools or rival sects as were the Grecian
philosophers, but there servants, without any authority or power of
their own. One may plant, and another water, but the whole increase is
of God, vs. 5-7.
2. Ministers are one. They have one master and one work. They may
have different departments in that great work, but they are like
fellow-laborers on the same farm, or fellow-builders on the same
temple, vs. 8, 9.
3. In the discharge of their respective duties they incur a great
responsibility. If they attempt to build up the temple of God with the
rubbish of their own wisdom, they will be severely punished. If they
employ the materials which God has furnished, they will be rewarded,
vs. 10-15.
 68
4. is because the church is the temple of God, that ministers will be held
to this strict account for the doctrines which they preach, and for the
way in which they execute their office, vs. 16, 17.
5. No minister need deceive himself in this matter. He cannot preach a
higher wisdom than the wisdom of God; and to learn that wisdom he
must renounce his own, vs. 18-20.
6. Therefore the people should not place their confidence in ministers,
who belong to the church, and not the church to them. To the interests
and consummation of the church, all things, visible and invisible, are
made subservient, vs. 21-23.

1. And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto
carnal, 4 (even) as unto babes in Christ.

There were two classes of opponents of the apostle in Corinth. The false
teachers, some of whom he denounces as anti-Christian, and others he
speaks of as only errorists; and secondly, those members of the church
whom these false teachers had seduced. As against the false teachers and
the unconverted Jews and Greeks he upheld the simple gospel as higher
man the wisdom of the world. His only answer to their objection that he
did not preach with “the wisdom of words,” was that the wisdom of the
world was foolishness with God. To the objection, as urged by believers,
that his preaching was too elementary, he answered, it was adapted to
their state. He could only speak to them as to children.

They were babes in Christ, that is, children in Christian knowledge and
experience. This idea he expresses by saying they were not spiritual but
carnal. Now as all Christians are spiritual, in the sense in which that term
is used in the preceding chapter, to say that men are not spiritual in that
sense, would be to say they are not Christians. Here, however, the apostle
tells those whom he admits to be Christians, and whom he calls brethren,
that they are not spiritual. He must use the word therefore in a modified
sense. This is a very common usage. When we predicate spirituality of a
Christian as compared to other Christians, we mean that he is eminently
spiritual. But when the distinction is between Christians and the world,
then every Christian is said to be spiritual. In like manner we speak of
 69
some Christians as worldly or carnal, without intending to deny that they
are Christians. It is obvious that the apostle uses the terms here in the
same manner. He is not speaking of Christians as distinguished from the
world, but of one class of Christians as distinguished from another.

2. I have fed you with milk and not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able
(to bear it), neither yet now are ye able.

As they were children, he had treated them accordingly. He had fed them
with milk; literally, ‘I gave you milk to drink and not meat.’ A concise form
of expression. What is the distinction which the apostle here makes
between milk and meat? It is evidently not the distinction between the
wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God. Paul did not preach the
wisdom of the world to babes in Christ, and the wisdom of God to
advanced Christians. Neither does he sanction any thing of the nature of
the Disciplina Arcani, or doctrine of the hidden essence of Christianity,
which was introduced in later times. For the sake either of conciliating the
heathen, or of preventing beginners from forming false notions of the
gospel, it became common deliberately to conceal the truth. This is the
foundation of the doctrine of reserve, as it is called, which the Romish
church has so extensively practiced and taught, inculcating a blind faith,
and keeping the people in ignorance. Neither is the distinction that which
also extensively prevailed in the early church after the age of the apostles,
between truth as the object of faith and truth as the object of knowledge.
This is a distinction true in itself, but as men understood, it meant nothing
less than the difference between the doctrines of the Bible and the
speculations of men. Philosophers of our own, and of every other age,
have been willing to allow the people the truth as presented in the
Scriptures, provided they themselves were allowed to explain them away
into philosophical formulas. The true nature of the distinction is to be
learnt partly from the import of the figure, and partly from parallel
passages. The import of the figure leads to the conclusion that the
difference is rather in the mode of instruction, than in the things taught.
The same truth in one form is milk, in another form strong meat. “Christ,”
says Calvin, “is milk for babes, and strong meat for men.” Every doctrine
which can be taught to theologians, is taught to children. We teach a child
that God is a Spirit, every where present and knowing all things; and he
 70
understands it. We tell him that Christ is God and man in two distinct
natures and one person for ever. This to the child is milk, but it contains
food for angels. The truth expressed in these propositions may be
expanded indefinitely, and furnish nourishment for the highest intellects to
eternity. The difference between milk and strong meat, according to this
view, is simply the difference between the more or less perfect
development of the things taught. This view is confirmed by those
passages in which the same distinction is made. Thus in Hebrews 5:11-14,
the apostle speaks of his readers as having need of milk and not of strong
meat. The reference is there to the distinction between the simple doctrine
of the priesthood of Christ and the full development of that doctrine. The
important truth is that there are not two sets of doctrine, a higher and a
lower form of faith, one for the learned and the other for the unlearned;
there is no part of the gospel which we are authorized to keep back from
the people. Every thing which God has revealed is to be taught to every
one just so fast and so far as he has the capacity to receive it.

3. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas (there is) among you envying, and
strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

Their unfitness to receive any other nourishment than that adapted to

children, is proved by their being carnal; and their being carnal is proved by
the divisions existing among them. Ye are yet carnal, i.e. under the
influence of the flesh, or corrupt nature. They were imperfectly sanctified.
Even Paul said of himself, ‘I am carnal.’ This term therefore may be
applied even to the most advanced Christians. Its definite meaning
depends on the context.

The existence among them of the evils mentioned was proof of their low
religious state. Of these evils the first was envying (zh~lov). The word
means zeal, fervid feeling. Whether good or bad, and of what particular
kind depends on the connection. Here party spirit would seem to be the
special evil intended. This gives rise to strife (e]riv), and that again to
divisions (dicostasi>a), literally, standing apart; here not sects, but
parties. If these things are among you, asks the apostle, are ye not carnal,
and walk as men? ‘To walk as men’ is to be guided by principles which
belong to men, as distinguished from the Spirit of God. The doctrine that
 71
human nature is corrupt, and that all holiness in man is due to the influence
of the Spirit, is taken for granted every where in the Bible. Therefore “the
world” means the wicked or the unrenewed; to be worldly, or to act after
the manner of men, is to act wickedly.

The description here given of the state of the church of Corinth is not
inconsistent with the commendations bestowed upon it in the beginning of
the first chapter. Viewed in comparison with the heathen around them, or
even with other churches, the Corinthians deserved the praise there given
them. But judged by the standard of the gospel, or of their privileges, they
deserved the censures which the apostle so faithfully administers. Besides,
in addressing the same church, the apostle has sometimes one class of its
members in view, and sometimes another. He therefore sometimes speaks
as if they were all Jews, at other times as though they were all Gentiles;
sometimes as though they were weak and narrow-minded, and sometimes
as if they were latitudinarian — one time he addresses them as if they were
in a high state of piety, and at another, as if they were in a very low state.
His language is to be limited in its application to those for whom the
context in any case may show it was intended.

4. For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I (am) of Apollos; are ye
not carnal?

This confirms the fact that there were such divisions among them as
proved them to be governed by unholy feelings, and also explains the
nature of those divisions. There were in Corinth, as appears from 1:12,
more parties than two; but the apostle confines himself to those here
mentioned, because throughout the whole discussion he has had reference
to the opposition of the Grecian element in the church, and because from
the intimate relation between himself and Apollos, he could speak of him
as freely as he did of himself. As the party spirit which disturbed the
peace of the Corinthian church arose from wrong views of the relation of
ministers to the church, the apostle endeavors to correct the evil by
presenting that relation in its true light.

5. Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye

believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
 72

This passage may read, ‘Who then is Paul, and who is Appollos? ministers
by whom ye believed,’ etc. Ministers are mere instruments in the hands of
God. The doctrines which they preach are not their own discoveries, and
the power which renders their preaching successful is not in them. They
are nothing, and therefore it is an entire perversion of their relation to the
church to make them the heads of parties. In the oldest MSS, the name of
Apollos stands first; and some of them have ti> instead of ti>v. ‘What then
is Apollos, and what is Paul.’ Both these emendations are adopted by the
later editors.

Paul and Apollos, men of the highest office and of the highest gifts, are
ministers (dia>konoi) waiters, attendants, servants; so called not from
their relation to God merely, as those who serve him, but also because of
their relation to the church, whose they are, to whom they belong, and
whom they serve.

By whom, i.e. by whose instrumentality, ye are believers, or, became

believers. The design of the ministry is to bring men to “the obedience of
faith,” Romans 1:5. It is appointed for that end by God himself, and
therefore it is of the greatest importance and value. This Paul does not
deny. He admits, and often urges the necessity of the office for the
extension and edification of the church, Ephesians 4:11-16. The people,
therefore, are bound to regard the ministry as a divine institution, and to
value its services; but preachers are not to be regarded as party leaders, or
as lords over God’s heritage.

Even as the Lord gave to every man; literally, to each one, i.e. to each
minister. They are all servants, and each has his appointed work to
perform, Romans 12:3. The Lord here probably refers to God, though
elsewhere the appointment of ministers and the distribution of their
various gifts are referred to Christ. Here, however, vs. 9, 10, the reference
is to God. In scripture the same act is sometimes referred to one, and
sometimes to another of the persons in the Trinity, because they are one
God.

6. I have planted, Apollos watered: but God gave the increase.

 73

This illustrates two points; first, the diversity of service on the part of
ministers, spoken of in v. 5, one plants and another waters; and secondly,
the entirely subordinate and instrumental character of their service. As in
nature, planting and watering are not the efficient causes of vegetation; so
in the church, ministerial acts are not the efficient causes of grace. In both
cases all the efficiency is of God. And as in nature, planting and watering
by human instrumentality, are not the necessary conditions of vegetation,
so neither are ministerial acts the necessary conditions of faith. On the
other hand, however, as the work of the husbandman is the ordinary and
appointed means of securing a harvest, so the work of the ministry is the
ordinary means of conversion.

7. So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth: but
God that giveth the increase.

This is the conclusion. Ministers are nothing. They are the instruments in
the hands of God. He only is to be looked up to as the source of truth, of
strength, or of success. To him is to be referred all the good ministers may
be the instruments of effecting. If this be so, if ministers are thus
inefficient, why should any one say, I am of Paul? as though Paul would
save him; or, as though a mere instrument could forgive sin or impart grace.

8. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall
receive his own reward, according to his own labor.

Are one. Ministers have the same office; they have the same work, they
stand in the same relation to God and to his Church. They are
fellow-laborers. To array the one against the other, is, therefore,
inconsistent with their relation to each other and to the people whom they
serve.

Every man shall receive his own reward. Diversity and unity is the law of
all God’s works. Ministers are one, yet they have different gifts, different
services to perform. One plants and another waters, and they have
different rewards.
 74
According to his own labor. The rule of reward is not the talents or gifts,
nor the success of ministers, but their labors. This brings the humblest on a
level with the most exalted; the least successful with the most highly
favored. The faithful, laborious minister or missionary who labors in
obscurity and without apparent fruit, will meet a reward far beyond that
of those who, with less self-denial and effort, are made the instruments of
great results. Corinth was the field of labor of a multitude of teachers,
some faithful, and some unfaithful; some laborious, and others indolent and
self-indulgent. Each would have to answer for himself, and would receive a
reward proportioned to his fidelity and self-denial.

9. For we are laborers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, (ye
are) God’s building.

For we are laborers together with God. This is at once the reason why
ministers are one, and why they are to be rewarded according to their
labors. They are one because they are all co-workers with God in the same
great enterprise; and they are to be rewarded according to their labor,
because that is the rule according to which laborers are rewarded. The
propriety of this representation is apparent, because the church is God’s
husbandry, or farm, which he renders fruitful by the light of truth and the
dew of his grace, and on which his servants labor. This is a familiar
scriptural illustration, as the church is often called the vineyard of the
Lord, in which his ministers are laborers. A laborer who does not labor is a
contradiction; and a minister who is not a worker cannot expect a laborer’s
reward. Ye are God’s building. A still more frequent figure; as the church is
so often compared to a temple which is in the course of erection, and of
which ministers are the builders, Ephesians 2:20-22; 1 Peter 2:5. Union
and fidelity in labor are required of those engaged in tilling the same farm,
or in the erection of the same building; and they are no less required in
those engaged in cultivating the vineyard of the Lord, or in erecting his
temple. The apostle drops the former, and carries out the latter figure.

10. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise
master-builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon.
But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
 75
According to the grace of God given unto me. Paul often speaks of his
apostolic office as a grace or favor which he had received of God, but here,
as in 15:10, the reference is more general. By the grace of God he means all
the gifts and influences of the Spirit, which not only qualified him for his
work, but rendered him so laborious and faithful. Here, as elsewhere, he
attributes to God all he was, and all that he was enabled to accomplish.

As a wise master-builder. Wise (sofo>v), i.e. skillful. The word is familiarly

used of artificers. Paul was not only a laborer, but an (ajrcite>ktwn)
architect. To him was revealed the whole plan of the building, and he was
inspired to develop that plan, and to prescribe the way in which it should
be carried out. He laid the foundation. The same idea as was expressed
above by saying, “I have planted, Apollos watered.” He began the work in
Corinth. Those who came after him were to carry on the edifice which he
had commenced. The building must be erected upon the foundation and
according to it. And, therefore, he adds, Let every man (i.e. every builder)
take heed how he buildeth thereupon. In the whole context he is speaking
of ministers, and therefore this clause must be considered as a warning
addressed to them. They are to take heed how, i.e. with what materials,
they carried on the building of this holy temple. Fidelity as well as
diligence is required in a minister. No matter how laborious he may be,
unless he employs the proper materials, he will lose his reward. Nothing
but truth can be safely used in the development of Christian character, or
in building up the Church. To mix the wisdom of men with the wisdom of
God in this work, is, as the apostle afterwards says, like using alternate
layers of straw and marble in the erection of a temple. Let no man deceive
himself in this matter. He will prove himself a fool, if he attempts to
substitute philosophy for the gospel in the work of saving men.

11. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ.

For, others can only carry on the work already begun, for the foundation
cannot be changed. The foundation of the church is Christ. Isaiah 28:16.
Acts 4:11. Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6. This may be understood either of
the person or of the doctrine of Christ. In either way the sense is good.
Christ, as the incarnate Son of God, according to one scriptural figure, is
 76
the head of the church which is his body, that is, he is the source of its life;
according to another figure, he is its foundation or corner stone, because on
him all the members of the church, considered as a temple, rest for
salvation. On the other hand, however, it is also true that the doctrine
concerning Christ, is the fundamental doctrine of the gospel. We may,
therefore, understand the apostle to say, that the work of the ministry is
to build up the church on the foundation which God has laid in the person
and work of Christ. There can be no other ground of confidence for the
justification, sanctification and salvation of men. Or we may understand
him to say, that the work of those who followed him in Corinth was
simply to build on the foundation which he had laid, in preaching the
doctrine of Christ and him crucified, for there can be no other foundation
of the church than that doctrine. The former interpretation, which is
adopted by many distinguished commentators, is more in accordance with
the common representations of Scripture which speak of God having
constituted Christ the corner-stone of the church. It is also perhaps more
in accordance with the form of expression here used. Jesus Christ himself
is the foundation, which was already laid. The second interpretation,
however, is certainly more consistent with the context. In v. 10 Paul says,
he had laid the foundation. This can only mean that he had in Corinth
taught the doctrine concerning the person and work of Christ. This is the
only sense in which he can be said to have laid that foundation which is
Jesus Christ. Besides, the whole passage has reference to doctrine. Paul
had preached the truth; those who came after him must take heed what
they preached.

12, 13. Now, if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious
stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for
the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire
shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is.

In consistency with the context, gold, silver and precious stones, can only
mean truth; and wood, hay and stubble, error. If by the foundation which
Paul had laid were intended the first converts in Corinth, then the above
terms would naturally be understood of good and bad members of the
church. The sense would then be, ‘I laid the foundation of the church in
Corinth by receiving true believers to its communion; let others take heed
 77
with what kind of members they build up the church.’ But as the
foundation which Paul laid is expressly declared to be Jesus Christ, or the
truth concerning his person and work, the words above mentioned must
refer to true and false doctrines. ‘I have laid the foundation of Christ
crucified; do you take heed with what kind of doctrine you carry on the
work.’ Besides, the whole discussion has reference to preachers and their
duties. Precious stones here mean stones valuable for building, such as
granite and marble. Gold and silver were extensively employed in adorning
ancient temples, and are therefore appropriately used as the symbols of
pure doctrine. Wood, hay, and stubble are the perishable materials out of
which ordinary houses were built, but not temples. Wood for the doors
and posts; hay, (co>rtov,) dried grass mixed with mud for the walls; and
straw, (kala>mh,) for the roof. These materials, unsuitable for the temple
of God, are appropriate symbols of false doctrines.

Every man’s work shall be made (or, become) manifest. In this life it may
be disputed whether a man’s doctrines are true or false. He may have great
confidence in their truth, and set himself above his brethren and even above
the Bible. But his work hereafter will appear in its true character. For the
day shall declare it. The day does not mean indefinitely time, ‘Time shall
declare it;’ nor the day of tribulation; nor the day of light and knowledge as
distinguished from the present ignorance; but the great day, the day of
judgment, or, as it is so often called, the day of the Lord. That day shall
make manifest the truth or falsehood of the doctrines taught, because it is
(i.e. is certainly to be) revealed by fire; literally, in or with fire (ejn puri> ).
In 2 Thessalonians 1:8, it is said, “The Lord Jesus shall be revealed in
flaming fire,” i.e. in the midst of flaming fire. Fire is the constant symbol of
trial and judgment. The meaning therefore is, that the day of the Lord will
be a day of severe trial. Every work will then be subjected to a test which
nothing impure can stand. The context shows that the word day, and not
work, is the nominative to revealed. ‘The day of judgment shall declare
every man’s work, because that day shall be revealed with fire.’

And the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. The figure is that
of a building on which many workmen are engaged. Some use proper
materials, others wood, hay and stubble. The building is to be subjected to
the test of fire. The wood, hay and stubble will be burnt up; only the solid
 78
materials will stand. False doctrine can no more stand the test of the day of
judgment, than hay or stubble can stand a raging conflagration.

14, 15. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall
receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss:
but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

This is an amplification of what precedes. If the materials employed by a

spiritual builder stand the test of the day of judgment, he shall receive the
reward of a faithful servant. Which he hath built thereupon, i.e. upon the
foundation. Comp. v. 12. If any man’s work shall be burned
(katakah>setai for katakauqh>setai); that is, if the materials used by
any builder shall not stand the test of that day, he shall suffer loss
(zhmiwqh>setai see 2 Corinthians 7:9; Philippians 3:8). That is, he will
lose his reward.

But he himself shall be saved. Just as a man who has built his house of
combustible materials, though he may escape when the fire comes, his
property is lost, and all his labor comes to nothing. The apostle is here
speaking of those teachers who, although they retain the fundamental
doctrines of the gospel, yet combine them with error. This is plain from v.
12, “If any man shall build on this foundation.” It is not enough, therefore,
that a minister hold fast to fundamental truth; he must take heed what he
teaches in connection with that truth. If he mingles with it the wood, hay
and stubble of his own philosophy, he will find himself a loser on the day
of judgment. Many of the Fathers understand swqh>setai here in the
sense of shall be preserved. His work shall be consumed, but he himself
shall be kept alive in the midst of the fire. It is not then the salvation, but
the final perdition of the false teacher that the passage teaches. This,
however, is contrary to the uniform meaning of the word in the New
Testament. The common interpretation is therefore to be preferred.

Yet so as by fire, i.e. with difficulty. Comp. 1 Peter 3:20. Jude 23.
Zechariah 3:2. He will just escape with his life, as a man is rescued from a
burning building. His salvation will not only be effected with difficulty,
but it will be attended with great loss. He will occupy a lower place in the
kingdom of heaven than he would have done. Romanists found their
 79
doctrine of purgatory on tradition rather than on Scripture. They are glad,
however, to avail themselves of any semblance of scriptural support, and
therefore appeal to this passage to prove that men are saved through fire.
But,
1. Paul is here speaking of ministers and of their doctrines, and not of
believers in general.
2. The fire of which he speaks is not a state of trial preceding the
judgment, but the judgment itself.
3. The fire is that in the midst of which Jesus Christ is to appear.
4. Paul does not say, the man is to be saved by being purified by fire, but
simply ‘with difficulty,’ as the expression “so as by fire” familiarly
means.

16. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and (that) the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you?

The apostle justifies the representation given above of the responsibility

of ministers. The unfaithful builders deserve to be thus punished, because
they are engaged in the erection of no ordinary building. They are not
raising up a house for themselves, to be constructed of what materials and
on whatever plan may suit their taste. They are building the temple of
God. This truth the Corinthians seem to have forgotten, for they regarded
their teachers as men allowed to preach their own speculations, and valued
them according to their proficiency in “the wisdom of words.” He,
therefore, asks them, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?” See
6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21. A temple is a house in which
God dwells; and therefore, it is added, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in
you. This indwelling of the Spirit constitutes each believer, every separate
church, and the Church collectively the temple of God. As in the Jewish
temple, in its inmost recess, the Shechinah, or glory of God, was
constantly present, and conferred on the building its awe-inspiring power,
and rendered any profanation of it a direct offense to God; so does the
Holy Spirit dwell in the Church, the profanation of which by false doctrine
is therefore sacrilege.
 80
17. If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy: for the
temple of God is holy, which (temple) ye are.

The word translated defile in the first clause of this verse, is the same as
that rendered destroy in the second clause. It (fqei>rw) has the general
meaning to bring into a worse state. In the LXX, as well as in the New
Testament it means to mar. The passage may, therefore, be rendered, ‘If
any man injure the temple of God, him will God injure.’ The temple
cannot be injured with impunity. Under the old dispensation the penalty
for defiling the sanctuary was either death, Leviticus 15:31, or excision
from the people, Numbers 19:20. God is not less jealous of his spiritual
temple, than he was of the typical temple, built of wood and stone by the
hands of men. Ministers injure the souls of men and injure the church
when they preach false doctrine, and therefore they defile the temple of
God, and will certainly be punished.

For the temple of God is holy, i.e. sacred; something which cannot be
violated with impunity. In this sense every thing consecrated to God is
holy, and especially any place or person in which he dwells. Which
(temple) ye are. As the word for temple is not in the text (which reads
oi[tine>v ejste uJmei~v) the reference may be to the word holy. ‘The temple
is holy, which ye also are.’ The same reason exists why the church cannot
be defiled or injured, that there is that the temple could not be profaned.
Both are sacred. The view given in our version is commonly preferred.

18. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise
in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

Let no man deceive himself. ‘Let no man doubt the truth of what I have
said of the worthlessness of human wisdom, and of the danger of
substituting it for the wisdom of God. If he does, he will find himself
mistaken.’

If any man among you seemeth to be wise, (dokei~ sofo<v ei+nai), thinks
himself to be wise. In this world may be connected with the word wise,
‘wise with the wisdom of this world.’ Or, it may be connected with the
whole preceding clause. ‘If any imagines he is wise among you, in this
 81
world.’ The former explanation is more in keeping with the whole context.
“Wise in this world” is equivalent to “wise after the flesh,” 1:26.

Let him become a fool, that he may be (or, become) wise. Let him renounce
his own wisdom in order that he may receive the wisdom of God. We must
be empty in order to be filled. We must renounce our own righteousness,
in order to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ. We must renounce our
own strength, in order to be made strong. We must renounce our own
wisdom, in order to be truly wise. This is a universal law. And it is
perfectly reasonable. We are only required to recognize that to be true,
which is true. We would not be required to renounce our own
righteousness, strength, or wisdom, if they were really what they assume
to be. It is simply because they are in fact worthless, that we are called
upon so to regard them.

19, 20. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is
written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord
knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

We must renounce our own wisdom because it is folly. The infinite mind
sees that to be folly which we children think to be wisdom. There are two
senses in which this is true, or in which wisdom may be said to be folly.
Even truth or true knowledge becomes folly, if employed to accomplish an
end for which it is not adapted. If a man attempts to make men holy or
happy; if he undertakes to convert the world, by mathematics, or
metaphysics, or moral philosophy, he is foolish, and his wisdom, as a
means to that end is folly. He must renounce all dependence on those
means if he would accomplish that end. But in the second place, much that
passes for wisdom among men is in itself, and not merely as a means to an
end, foolishness. Both these ideas are evidently comprehended in the
apostle’s statement. He means to say that human knowledge is entirely
inadequate to save men; because that end can only be accomplished by the
gospel. And he means also to brand as folly the speculations of men about
“the deep things of God.”

In proof of the assertion that the wisdom of men is foolishness with God,
he quotes two passages of Scripture. The first is from Job 5:13, the second
 82
is from Psalms 94:11. The former is a fragment of a sentence containing in
the Greek no verb. Our translation renders the participle (oJ
drasso>menov) as though it were a verb. Those passages clearly express
the same sentiment which the apostle had uttered. They declare the
impotency and insufficiency of human wisdom.

21. Therefore let no one glory in men: for all things are yours.

To glory in any person or thing is to trust in him or it as the ground of

confidence, or as the source of honor or blessedness. It is to regard
ourselves as blessed because of our relation to it. Thus men are said to
glory in the Lord, or in the cross; because God, or Christ as crucified, is
regarded as the ground of confidence and the source of blessedness. Others
are said to glory in the flesh, in the law, or even in themselves. The apostle
having shown that ministers are mere servants, nothing in themselves, and
that the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God, draws from these
premises the inference that they are not the ground of the believer’s
confidence. The Corinthians did glory in men, when they said, I am of
Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. They forgot their own dignity when
they regarded as masters those who were their servants.

For all things are yours. The amplification of these words, given in the
next verse, shows that they are to be taken in their widest sense. The
universe is yours. How unworthy men is it, that you should glory in men.
Paul often appeals to the dignity and destiny of the church as a motive to
right action. “Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world?” 6:2.
There are two senses in which the declaration, “All things are yours,” may
be understood. It means that all things are designed to promote the
interests of the church. The consummation of the work of redemption is
the great end to which all things are directed, and to which they are to be
made subservient. And secondly, the church is the heir of the world,
Romans 4:13. All things are given to Christ as the head of the church and
to the church in him. For his people are to reign with him, Romans 8:17,
and the glory which the Father gave him, he gives them, John 17:22. The
church, which is to be thus exalted, is not any external society with its
hierarchy, nor is it the body of poor, imperfect believers as they now are,
who for their own good are despised and down-trodden. But it is the
 83
consummated church to be formed out of materials now so unpromising.
The people of God, however, should not be unmindful of their high
destiny, nor act unworthily of it.

22. Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or

things present, or things to come; all are yours;

This is the amplification of the preceding verse. In the “all things” there
mentioned are included,
1. The ministry, which belongs to the church and is designed for its
edification. The church does not belong to the ministry, as a kingdom
belongs to a king, but the reverse.
2. The world (ko>smov) in its widest sense. The present order of things is
maintained and directed to the promotion of the great work of
redemption.
3. Life and death. This means not merely that the question whether the
people of God live or die, is determined with reference to their own
good; but also that life and death are dispensed and administered so as
best to fulfill the designs of God in reference to the church. The
greatest men of the world, kings, statesmen and heroes, ministers,
individual believers and unbelievers, live or die just as best subserves
the interests of Christ’s kingdom.
4. Things present and things to come, i.e. the present and the future. It is
no temporary subjection of all things to the church which is intended.
The plan of God contemplates the permanent exaltation of the
redeemed.

23. And ye are Christ’s: and Christ (is) God’s.

As all things are subject to the church and belong to it, the church itself can
be subject and belong to none but Christ. In him, therefore, only can it
glory.

Christ is God’s. As the church is subject only to Christ, so Christ is

subject only to God. The Scriptures speak of a threefold subordination of
Christ.
 84
1. A subordination as to the mode of subsistence and operation, of the
second, to the first person in the Trinity; which is perfectly consistent
with their identity of substance, and equality in power and glory.
2. The voluntary subordination of the Son in his humbling himself to be
found in fashion as a man, and becoming obedient unto death, and
therefore subject to the limitations and infirmities of our nature.
3. The economical or official subjection of the theanthropos. That is, the
subordination of the incarnate Son of God, in the work of redemption
and as the head of the church. He that is by nature equal with God
becomes, as it were, officially subject to him. The passages the most
directly parallel with the one before us are 11:3, and 15:28, but in
Philippians 2:6-11. Hebrews 1:3, and in many other passages, the same
truth is taught.
 85

CHAPTER IV.
Deduction from the preceding discussion, teaching the proper light in which
the people should regard the ministry, vs. 1-6. contrast between the apostles
and the false teachers, vs. 6-21.

MINISTERS, AS STEWARDS, SHOULD BE FAITHFUL,

AS PAUL HAD PROVED HIMSELF TO BE, VS. 1-21.

It follows, from what was said in the preceding chapter, that the people
should regard their ministers as the servants of Christ, and dispensers of
the truths which God had revealed, v. 1. The most important qualification
of a dispenser is fidelity, v. 2. It is a small matter how men may estimate
the fidelity of ministers. The only competent judge is the Lord; and,
therefore, to his judgment the decision of that question should be referred,
vs. 3-6.

What the apostle had said of himself and of Apollos, in the foregoing
exhibition of the true nature of the ministerial office, was intended to
apply to all ministers, that the people should not estimate them unduly,
and that all emulous contentions might be avoided, vs. 6, 7. The false
teachers in Corinth, and the people under their influence, considered
themselves to be in a high state of religious prosperity, and were disposed
to self-indulgence, v. 8. The apostles were in a very different condition, at
least as to their external circumstances. They were despised, afflicted, and
persecuted; while their adversaries were honored, prosperous, and
caressed, vs. 9-13. Paul presented this contrast not to mortify, but to
admonish his readers, v. 14. He, if any one, had a right to admonish them,
for he was their spiritual father, v. 15. They should therefore imitate him;
and, to that end, he had sent Timothy to remind them of his instructions
and example, vs. 16, 17. He himself intended soon to visit Corinth; and it
depended on them whether he should come with a rod, or in the Spirit of
meekness, vs. 18-21.
 86
1. Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of
the mysteries of God.

This is the conclusion or deduction from the preceding discussion.

Ministers are the servants of Christ, and stewards of God. Let a man, i.e.
every one. Account of us, (logize>sqw) let him think of us, or regard us as
being. The ministers of Christ. Literally the word (uJphre>thv) means an
under-rower, or common sailor; and men, subordinate servant of any kind.
It is generally and properly used of menials, or of those of the lower class
of servants. This is not always the case, but here the idea of entire
subjection is to be retained. Ministers are the mere servants of Christ; they
have no authority of their own; their whole business is to do what they are
commanded.

And stewards of the mysteries of God. Stewards (oijkono>moi) were

generally slaves appointed as managers or overseers. It was their business
to direct the affairs of the household, and dispense the provisions. It is as
dispensers ministers are here called stewards. They are to dispense the
mysteries of God, that is, the truths which God had revealed, and which, as
being undiscoverable by human reason, are called mysteries, into the
knowledge of which men must be initiated. Mysteries here do not mean the
sacraments. The word is never used in reference to either baptism or the
Lord’s Supper in the New Testament. And such a reference in this case is
forbidden by the whole context. In the second chapter, the mystery which
Paul speaks of is declared to be the gospel considered as a revelation of
God. In the Romish church, the principal function of ministers is to
dispense the sacraments to which they are assumed to have the power, in
virtue of the grace of orders, to give supernatural power. In the apostolic
church they were regarded as the dispensers of the truth. This verse,
therefore, contains two important truths: Ministers have no arbitrary or
discretionary authority in the church. Neither have they any supernatural
power, such as is attributed to them in the Romish church. Their authority
is merely ministerial, limited by the commands of Christ, and, therefore, to
be judged by the standard of those commands, which are known to the
whole church. And secondly, they are not, like Aristotle or Plato, the
originators of their own doctrines, or the teachers of the doctrines of other
men, but simply the dispensers of the truths which God has revealed.
 87

2. Moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

Moreover, (o{ de< loipo>n) but what remains is; as to the rest. Instead of
the words just mentioned Lachmann and Tischendorf adopt the reading
w+de, here, i.e. in the earth, or, in this matter. The most ancient MSS. are in
favor of this reading, and the sense is good. The great requisite for the
discharge of the office of a steward is fidelity. As he is a servant he must
be faithful to his master; as he is a dispenser, he must be faithful to those
subject to his oversight. He must not neglect to dispense to them their
food; neither may he adulterate it, or substitute any thing in the place of
that which is given them to distribute. The application of this to the case
of ministers is plain. The great thing required of them is fidelity. Fidelity
to Christ as servants; not arrogating to themselves any other man
ministerial power, or venturing to go beyond his commands. Fidelity also
to the people, not failing to dispense to them the truths which God has
revealed, nor mixing those truths with their own speculations, much less
substituting for those doctrines human knowledge or wisdom.

3. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of

man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

Fidelity to duty supposes responsibility to some one. As ministers are

required to be faithful, who is to judge of their fidelity? Paul says, so far as
he was concerned, it was not the Corinthians, not the world, not himself
— but, as he adds in the next verse, the Lord.

But with me, (ejmoi< de< ); to me, i.e. in my estimation. It is a very small thing
(eijv ejla>cisto>n ejsti), it amounts to nothing. “That I should be judged of
you.” This does not refer to the judicial judgment of the church, but
simply to the opinions which the Corinthians entertained of Paul. It
mattered little to him whether they thought him faithful or unfaithful. His
responsibility was not to them. They had not sent him; they had not told
him what doctrines to preach. He was not their steward, but the steward
of God. Or of man’s judgment (uJpo< anqrwpi>nhv hJme>rav) literally, by
human day. As ‘the day of the Lord’ means the day of God’s judgment, so
‘the day of men’ means the day of man’s judgment. The sense is obvious,
 88
though the expression no where else occurs. The apostle, although denying
his responsibility to the Corinthians, or to any human tribunal for his
fidelity as a minister of Christ, does not mean to assert that he was his
own judge. He therefore adds, “I judge not my own self.” Many men think
themselves faithful, who are most unfaithful. It is not enough that our own
conscience does not condemn us. Conscience is a partial, and often an
unenlightened judge. We may justify ourselves, and be at last condemned
by God. But, if our heart condemn us, how can we stand before him who
knows all things?

4. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that
judgeth me is the Lord.

For I know nothing by myself, (oujde<n ga<r ejmautw~| su>noida) I am

conscious of nothing. That is, my conscience does not accuse me of any
thing. Paul is speaking of his fidelity as a steward. He says, he was not his
own judge, for though his conscience did not accuse him of want of
ministerial fidelity, that did not justify him. I am not thereby justified. That
is, I am not thereby acquitted. My judgment of myself is not final. The
only impartial, competent, and final judge is the Lord. This interpretation
of the verse is suited to the meaning of the words and to the connection,
and has the sanction of general approbation. The connection indicated by
for is between what precedes and the latter part of the verse, ‘I judge not
myself, for he that judgeth me is the Lord.’ It need hardly be remarked,
that when Paul says, he was conscious of nothing wrong, the declaration is
to be limited by the connection. He speaks of himself elsewhere as the
chief of sinners, which is perfectly consistent with his saying that his
conscience acquitted him of failure in fidelity as a minister.

The clause, I am not hereby justified, must also be explained in reference to

the connection. He is not speaking of the doctrine of justification; and,
therefore, is not to be understood to say, ‘My justification is not thereby
secured.’ That is, he does not mean to say that ministerial fidelity is not
the ground of his justification. This would be entirely out of keeping with
the context. All he means is, that the question whether he was faithful, was
one not to be decided by his conscience, but by the Lord. Lord here
evidently means Christ, who is therefore a higher judge than conscience.
 89
As a moral agent, as a believer, and as a minister, Paul felt himself
accountable to Christ. This inward allegiance of the conscience is the
highest form of worship. The Lord Jesus was to the apostle the object of
all those sentiments and feelings which terminate on God. And he must be
so to us, or we are not Christians; because, what makes a man a Christian,
is to feel and act towards Christ as God.

5. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both
will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the
counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

As the Lord is the only judge, we must wait for his appearance, and
neither assume his prerogative, nor anticipate his decision. Judge nothing
before the time (kairo>v), i.e. the appropriate, or appointed time. What
time is intended is intimated in the next clause. Until the Lord come, (e[wv
a}n e]lqh, shall have come,) i.e. until the second advent of Christ, which in
the New Testament is constantly represented as contemporaneous with
the resurrection of the dead and the general judgment. He is to come for
judgment, Matthew 24:30, 46; 2 Peter 3:4, 12. Jude 14. Revelation 1:7.
The reason why the coming of the Lord is the appropriate time for
judgment is, that he will then do what cannot be done before, or by any
creature. He will bring to light (shed light upon) the secret things of
darkness; that is, things which are now hidden in darkness. This includes
acts which are now unknown, and those principles of action which lie
concealed in the recesses of the heart, where no human eye can reach them.
This is all the context requires. In other connections the secret things, or
the works of darkness, means wicked works; works done in the dark to
avoid detection; or works which spring from moral darkness, Ephesians
5:11. But the apostle is here speaking of the reason why judgment should
be deferred until the coming of Christ. The reason is that he alone can bring
to light the secret acts and motives of men. These secret works and
motives, and not merely outward acts, are the grounds of judgment.
Whether a man is faithful in preaching the gospel depends upon his
motives; for some preached Christ of contention, Philippians 1:16. This
view of the passage is confirmed by the explanatory clause which follows,
and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. The former expression is
general, this is special. The ‘counsels of the heart’ are included in the
 90
‘secret things of darkness.’ He who sheds light on the secret things of
darkness not only reveals acts done in secret, but makes manifest the
counsels of the heart. What a work is here ascribed to the Lord Jesus! He
will bring to light the secret acts and hidden motives of every human being.
He will exercise the prerogative of judging the heart and conscience; a
prerogative which none but an omniscient being can rightfully claim or
possibly exercise. It is therefore in Scripture always spoken of as peculiar
to God, Psalms 26:2. Jeremiah 11:20; 20:12. Revelation 2:23. Paul
appealed from the fallible judgment of short-sighted men, to the infallible
judgment of his omniscient Lord.

And then; not before, because not until then will the full truth be known.
Shall every man have praise (e]painov, much praise, applause, a loud and
clear acclaim of commendation; Well done, thou good and faithful servant!)
The reason why Paul uses the word praise, and not the general term
recompense, probably is, that he is throughout the passage speaking of
himself. The Corinthians had sat in judgment on his fidelity. He tells them
that neither they nor he could competently decide whether he was faithful
or not. The Lord was the only judge. When he comes, the truth will be
known, and then there shall be praise. He knew there was laid up for him a
crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous judge would give him
in that day, 2 Timothy 4:8. Still, as what is true of him is true of others, he
expresses himself in general terms. Then shall every man have praise. That
is, every faithful servant. Praise of God, i.e. from God. He is the ultimate
source of all good. He is in Christ; and Christ is in God. The
Theanthropos, as final judge, is the representative of the Godhead, so that
his decisions and awards are the decisions and awards of God. As
remarked above, 2:15, what the apostle says of his independence of human
judgment, and his command not to anticipate the judgment of the Lord, is
consistent with his frequent recognition of the right and duty of the church
to sit in judgment on the qualifications of her own members. He is here
speaking of the heart. The church cannot judge the heart. Whether a man is
sincere or insincere in his professions, whether his experience is genuine or
spurious, God only can decide. The church can only judge of what is
outward. If any man profess to be holy, and yet is immoral, the church is
bound to reject him, as Paul clearly teaches in a following chapter. Or if he
profess to be a Christian, and yet rejects Christianity, or any of its
 91
essential doctrines, he cannot be received, Titus 3:10. But “the counsels of
the heart” the Searcher of hearts only can judge.

6. And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and

(to) Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think (of men)
above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against
another.

These things refers to what was said in the preceding chapter of preachers,
especially to what is said from 3:5, and onwards. These things he had in a
figure transferred to himself and Apollos. That is, instead of teaching in an
abstract, general form, that ministers were mere servants, he had presented
the truth in a concrete form, saying that he and Apollos were servants,
mere instruments in the hand of God. This was the (metaschmatismo>v ),
the change of form which he had adopted. He did this, he says, that they
might learn in us, i.e. by what I have said of Apollos and myself, not to
think above that which is written. That is, not to estimate ministers above
the scriptural standard. As Paul had been treating of this subject, above
that which is written, might seem naturally to refer to what he himself had
just written. But as the phrase always elsewhere refers to the Old
Testament, which were the writings recognized as of divine authority, such
is probably the reference here. He does not appeal to any one passage, but
to the doctrine taught in the Scriptures concerning ministers of religion.
The Corinthians were not to think of their ministers more highly man the
Bible authorized them to think. Comp. Jeremiah 9:23, 24. The particle
(i[na), rendered that, has its ordinary force, in order that, although the
following verb (fusiou~sqe,) is in the indicative, a combination which
occurs nowhere else except in Galatians 4:17. The connection is with the
preceding clause, ‘That ye may learn to think correctly, in order that,’ etc.

That no one be puffed up for one against another; literally, that ye be not
puffed up one for one against another. This admits of two interpretations.
It may mean, ‘That ye be not inflated one on account of one teacher, and
against another.’ The Corinthians were proud of their connection one with
one teacher, and another with another. And this led to the strifes and
divisions which existed among them. Paul taught them that ministers were
servants, in order that they might not thus contend about them. This,
 92
although it gives a good sense, is neither consistent with the structure of
the passage nor with what follows. The meaning is, ‘Be not puffed up one
above another,’ (ei=v uJpe<r tou~ eJno<v), comp. in the Greek 1 Thessalonians
5:11. The followers of Apollos exalted themselves over those of Paul, and
those of Paul over those of Cephas. One exalted himself above another and
against him. He not only thought himself better than his brother, but
assumed a hostile attitude towards him. This view is confirmed by the next
verse, which is directed against the self-conceit of the Corinthians and not
against their zeal for their teachers.

7. For who maketh thee to differ (from another)? and what hast thou that
thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive (it), why dost thou glory,
as if thou hadst not received (it)?

Who maketh thee to differ? This may mean either, ‘Who thinks you are
better than others?’ Your superiority over your brethren is mere
self-conceit and inflation. The difference between you is only imaginary.
Or, it may mean, ‘Who is the author of this superiority?’ Admitting you
to be as superior to others as you imagine, to whom are you indebted for
it? According to the latter explanation the verse contains but one argument
against their pride, viz., that all distinguishing advantages are derived from
God. According to the former, there are two distinct considerations urged:
first, that they had no ground for thinking themselves better than others;
and second, if they had any superiority it was due not to themselves, but
to God. So that in either case their inflation was absurd and unchristian. It
is here assumed that every thing, whether natural or gracious, by which
one man is favorably distinguished from another, is due to God; and being
thus due to him and not to the possessor, is a cause of gratitude, but not of
self-complacency or of self-applause. This is true even of those things
which are acquired by great self-denial and exertion. Paul was as much
self-formed as any man ever was, and yet he said, By the grace of God I
am what I am.

8. Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us:
and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.

Having, says Calvin, repressed their self-conceit, he here derides it. That
 93
the passage is ironical, and even sarcastic, cannot be denied. This is not the
only instance in which these weapons are used by the inspired writers.
The prophets especially employ them freely in their endeavors to
convince the people of the folly of trusting to idols. The propriety of the
use of weapons so dangerous depends on the occasion and the motive. If
the thing assailed be both wicked and foolish, and if the motive be, not the
desire to give pain, but to convince and to convert, their use is justified by
Scriptural examples. There is an evident climax in the verse. Ye are not
only full, but more than full; ye are rich, you have more than enough; and
ye are not only rich, ye are as kings. Now (h]dh) already. ‘You have
reached the goal of perfection very quick; and that without us. You have
left us poor apostles far behind you.’ The reference is to the benefits of
redemption. Paul represents the Corinthians as thinking that they had
already attained the full blessedness of the Messiah’s reign; that they had
already attained, and were already perfect. He therefore adds, I would ye
did reign. ‘I would that the consummation of Christ’s kingdom had really
come, for then I would share with you in its glories.’ I would to God is a
translation not authorized, or at least not demanded, by the original,
o]felon, which in the later Greek, and in the New Testament, is a particle
of wishing or an interjection; would that, O that. So the Greek phrase (mh<
ge>noito) so often rendered in our version, “God forbid!” is simply an
expression of aversion, “Let it not be.” The Scriptures do not countenance
such appeals to God as seem to have been common when our version was
made.

9. For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were
appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to
angels, and to men.

For. ‘I would that the consummation were really come, for we apostles are
now very far from being treated as kings.’ God hath set forth, i.e. publicly
exhibited. He has made us conspicuous as the last, the lowest, the most
afflicted of men. The original does not admit of the translation proposed
by many, us the last apostles, i.e. those last appointed — referring to
himself, who was, as he says, born out of due time. The emphasis, from
the collocation of the words, is thrown on apostles and not on last. What
follows is explanatory. As appointed unto death. This does not merely
 94
mean that they were exhibited as men daily exposed to death; which indeed
was true, 15:30, 31; 2 Corinthians 1:8, 9:11, 23; but also that they were
treated as men condemned to death, that is, as convicts, men to whom all
comforts were denied. ‘We have become a spectacle (qe>atron, literally, a
theatre; here metonymically, a show exhibited in a theatre) to the universe
(ko>smw|), as well to angels, as to men.’ Such were the sufferings of the
apostles that men and angels gazed on them with wonder, as people gaze
on a spectacle in a theatre. The word angels when used without
qualification always means good angels, and must be so understood here.

10. We (are) fools for Christ’s sake, but ye (are) wise in Christ; we (are)
weak, but ye (are) strong; ye (are) honorable, but we (are) despised.

In amplification of what he had just said, he contrasts, in this and the

following verses, his situation with theirs. There are two things included in
these contrasts. The opinion which the Corinthians entertained, and that
which was entertained by others. We are fools on account of Christ; our
devotion to the cause of Christ is such that you and others regard us as
fools; ye are wise in Christ; your union with Christ is such that you regard
yourselves and are regarded by others as wise. We are weak, we feel
ourselves to be so, and are so considered; ye are strong, you so regard
yourselves, and are so regarded. You are honored, you are objects of
respect, we of contempt. All this doubtless has special, though not
exclusive, reference to the false teachers, whose state in Corinth he
contrasts with his own.

11. Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked,
and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place;

That a man should freely subject himself to hunger, thirst, and nakedness,
and submit to be buffeted, and homeless, for no selfish purpose, but
simply to preach Christ, was indeed, in the eyes of the world, foolishness.
The fact that Paul gladly submitted to all these afflictions, presented his
case in glaring contrast with that of his opposers in Corinth, who exposed
themselves to no such sufferings out of zeal for Christ.
 95
12, 13. And labor, working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless;
being persecuted, we suffeit; being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the
filth of the world, (and are) the off-scouring of all things unto this day.

Working with our own hands. The apostle, in a subsequent chapter,

proves at length his right, and that of other ministers to an adequate
support from the church. But he did not avail himself of that right in
Corinth, 9:15.

Being reviled. (loidorou>menoi), being railed at, or made the object of

scurrility. We bless, i.e. we speak well of, or implore good upon. We return
abuse with kind words, or, with good wishes and prayers. Being
persecuted. As the former term refers to injurious words, this refers to
injurious acts. We suffer it, i.e. we patiently submit to it without resistance
or complaint. Being defamed, i.e. having evil deeds or motives ascribed to
us. We entreat (parakalou~men), we exhort. That is, we endeavor to meet
with kindness such injurious imputations, instead of repelling them with
anger and indignation. In all this the apostle followed the example of his
divine master, who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he
suffered, he threatened not, but committed himself to him who judgeth
righteously, 1 Peter 2:23.

We are made as the filth of the earth, or rather of the world (ko>smou).
That is, we are regarded as the filthiest of mankind. And the off-scouring of
all things, or of all men. That is, as the refuse of society. The words
(perika>qarma and peri>yhma) rendered filth and off-scouring, signify,
the former, what is carried off by rinsing and the latter, what is scraped
off. They both express the general idea of refuse. This is all the context
demands or suggests. The apostle sums up all he had previously said, by
saying, ‘We are regarded as the dregs or refuse of the world.’ As both of
these words, however, and especially the former, are used of victims
chosen from the lowest class of the people, who in times of calamity were
offered in sacrifice to the gods, it is very generally assumed that Paul here
refers to that custom; and means to say that he was regarded as one of
those who were considered only fit to be put to death for the good of
others. This brings out the same idea in a different form. It is not probable,
however, that any such allusion is here intended; because the custom was
 96
not so common as to be familiar to his readers generally, and because the
word commonly used for such sacrifices was not, perika>qarma, which
Paul uses, but ka>qarma. In Proverbs 21:18, however, it is said, The
wicked is a ransom (perika>qarma) for the righteous. Paul certainly did
not consider himself or his sufferings as a propitiation for other men. The
point of comparison, if there be any allusion to the custom in question, is
to the vileness of such victims, which were always chosen from the
worthless and despised. This and other passages of Paul’s writings (comp.
2 Corinthians 11:23-27) present in a very strong light the indignities and
sufferings which he endured in the service of Christ, and may well put us
to shame, as well as the self-satisfied and self-indulgent Corinthians. What
are we doing for him for whom Paul did and suffered so much?

14. I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn
(you).

Not as shaming you. (ejntre>pwn) write I these things. The word used
signifies to invert, to turn round, or back; and then, generally, to move, and
especially to move to shame. It may be rendered here, ‘I write not these
things as moving you,’ i.e. to work upon your feelings. The use of the
word in 2 Thessalonians 3:14, and Titus 2:8, is in favor of the common
interpretation. Paul’s object in drawing such a contrast between their case
and his, was not to mortify them; but as his beloved sons, i.e. out of love
to them as his sons, he says, I warn you. The word (nouqete>w) is that
generally used to express parental admonition and instruction. His design
was to bring the truth to their minds, and let them see what they really
were, as contrasted with what they imagined themselves to be.

15. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet (have ye) not
many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Paul was entitled to admonish them as sons, for he was their spiritual
father. The words in Christ are not connected with instructors, as though
the sense were, ‘instructors who are in Christ,’ i.e. Christian instructors.
The position of the words in the original show that they belong to the
verb. Though ye may have in Christ, i.e. in reference to Christ, or as
Christians, many teachers, ye have not many fathers.’ The pedagogues
 97
(paidagwgoi>) among the Greeks were usually slaves, who were the
constant attendants, rather than the teachers, of the boys of a family. They
had, however, the charge of their education, and therefore the word is used
in the New Testament for instructors. Paul contrasts his relation to the
Corinthians as their spiritual father, with that of their other teachers. The
point of the contrast is not that he loved them, and they did not; or that
they were disposed to arrogate too much authority, and he was not; but
simply, that he was the means of their conversion, and they were not. His
relation to them preceded theirs and was more intimate and tender.

He was their father, “for in Christ Jesus he had begotten them.” That is, in
virtue of his union to Christ, as his apostle and minister. In himself he
could do nothing. It was only as an instrument in the hand of Christ that
he was successful in bringing them to the obedience of faith. Comp.
Galatians 2:8. By the gospel, i.e. by means of the gospel. There are three
agencies in the conversion of men. The efficiency is in Christ by his Spirit;
the administrative agency is in preachers; the instrumental in the word.
What God has joined together, let not man put asunder. We cannot do
without the first and the third, and ought not to attempt to do without the
second. For though multitudes are converted by the Spirit through the
word, without any ministerial intervention, just as grain springs up here
and there without a husbandman, yet it is the ordinance of God that the
harvest of souls should be gathered by workmen appointed for that
purpose.

16. Wherefore, I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

Wherefore, i.e. because I am your father. Be ye followers (mimhtai>,

literally, imitators) of me. He does not exhort them to become his followers
or partisans, instead of being the followers of Apollos or of Cephas. But
as he had spoken of himself as being humble, self-denying and
self-sacrificing in the cause of Christ, he beseeches them to follow his
example. In 11:1 he says, “Be ye imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”
Comp. 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 2:14. Ephesians 5:1.
 98
17. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son,
and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways
which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

For this cause, that is, to secure your imitating my example. This end,
Timothy, whom he commends as his son, and as faithful, was to
accomplish by vindicating the apostle from the aspersions which had been
cast upon him, by reminding the Corinthians of his conduct and teaching as
a minister of Christ. Nothing more was necessary man to appeal to their
own knowledge of what Paul had been among them. My son; not only the
object of my love, but my child; one whom I have begotten through the
gospel. This is implied from the use of the word in v. 14. Comp. 1
Timothy 1:2, where he speaks of him as “his own son in the faith.” The
fact that Timothy stood in this endearing relation to Paul, was a reason for
his sending him, and also a reason why they should receive him with
confidence. He was, however, not only Paul’s son, but faithful in the Lord.
And this was a further reason both for his mission and for their regard and
confidence. Faithful in the Lord means faithful in the service of Christ, or
as a Christian. The words in the Lord admit of being connected with the
word son, so as to give the sense, “My faithful son in the Lord.”

The work which Timothy was to do was to remind the Corinthians of

what they seem to have forgotten, viz., of Paul’s ways which were in
Christ, how he taught, etc. The latter clause limits and explains the former.
It was not so much his ways or deportment in general, as his character and
conduct as a teacher, which were to be brought to mind. This, however,
included his consistency, his zeal, humility and fidelity. It is evident from
2 Corinthians 1:17-20 that inconsistency and instability both as to his
doctrines and plans, was one of the objections urged against Paul in
Corinth, as in other places, comp. Galatians 5:11. My ways which be in
Christ, means the ways which I follow in the service of Christ. It was his
official conduct as an apostle and teacher which Timothy was to bring to
their recollection. As (kaqw>v), in the sense of how. Acts 15:14; 3 John 3.
He is to remind you as, i.e. how, I teach every where in every church.
Paul’s doctrine and mode of teaching were every where the same. And to
this fact Timothy was to bear testimony, and thus vindicate him from the
aspersions of his enemies.
 99

18. Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.

His sending Timothy was not to be considered as any indication that he

himself did not intend to visit Corinth, as some in their pride and
self-confidence supposed. It appears from numerous passages in this and
the following epistle, that the false teachers in Corinth in various ways
endeavored to undermine Paul’s authority. They called in question his
apostleship, 9:1-3; 2 Corinthians 12:12; they accused him of lightness, or
instability, 2 Corinthians 1:17; they represented him as weak in person
and contemptible in speech, 2 Corinthians 10:10. These were the persons
who were puffed up, that is, so conceited as to their own importance, and
as to the effect of their injurious representations respecting the apostle, as
to give out that he was afraid to come to Corinth, and therefore sent
Timothy in his place.

19. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the
speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.

In opposition to this boasting of his opponents, Paul declares his purpose

soon to visit Corinith, if the Lord (i.e. Christ) will. Comp. 16:7 and Acts
16:7. This is a recognition both of the providential and spiritual
government of Christ. It supposes the external circumstances, and the
inward state of the apostle, his purposes and convictions of duty, to be
determined by the providence and Spirit of Christ. Thus constantly did
Paul live in communion with Christ as his God, submitting to him and
trusting to him at all times.

And will know not the speech but the power of those who are puffed up.
That is, not what they can say, but what they can do. By power
(du>namiv) some understand miraculous power, which does not suit the
context. Others confine it to spiritual power, that is, the power derived
from the Spirit. The word is sometimes used for the essential power, or
true nature and efficacy of a thing. And this sense best suits the antithesis
between speech and power. Paul meant to put to the test, not what these
men could say, but what they really were and did; that is, their true
character and efficiency. Comp. 1 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Timothy 3:5.
 100
“Having the form of godliness, but denying the power (du>namin) thereof,”
i.e. its real nature and efficacy.

20. For the kingdom of God (is) not in word, but in power.

The idea expressed by the phrase “kingdom of God,” in the New

Testament, is very comprehensive and manifold, and therefore indefinite.
The two senses under which most if not all, its applications may be
comprehended are,
1. The royal authority or dominion exercised by God or Christ; and
2. Those over whom that authority extends, or who recognize and submit
to it. In the former sense, the word (basilei>a) kingdom is used in
such expressions as, Thy kingdom come, Of his kingdom there is no
end, The sceptre of his kingdom, etc., etc. In such expressions as, To
enter the kingdom of God; The children, or members of the kingdom,
the phrase means the community over which God reigns, whether in
this world, or in the world to come. In the former sense the meaning is
equivalent to the reign of God. Hence to say, Thy kingdom come, and
to say, May God reign, is the same thing. Now as God reigns in the
hearts of his people — as well as in the church, and in heaven — so
this inward spiritual dominion is called the kingdom of God. In this
sense the passage, “the kingdom of God is within you,” may be
understood; and also Romans 14:17, “The kingdom of God is not meat
and drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost;”
which is equivalent to saying that true religion does not consist in
external observances, but in inward graces.
This is the form of the idea which seems best suited to the passage before
us. ‘God’s reign, his dominion in the heart, or true religion, does not
consist in professions, but in reality.’ The word power is to be taken in
the same sense here as in v. 19. Paul says, ‘I will know, not what these
men say, but what they really are; for the kingdom of God (or religion)
does not consist in what is apparent and outward, but in what is inward
and real.’ It is not a semblance, but a reality.

21. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and (in) the
Spirit of meekness?
 101
Paul, so far from being afraid to go to Corinth, as his enemies imagined,
was prepared to go there with authority. He was their spiritual father and
ruler. He had the right and the ability to punish them. It depended on
themselves in what character he should appear among them, whether as a
punisher or as a comforter — whether in the exercise of discipline, or as a
kind and tender parent. The preposition (ejn) rendered with in the first
clause, is the same as that rendered in in those which follow. It has the
same force in them all. It means furnished with, attended by. That is, it
marks the attending circumstances. The expression “spirit of meekness” is
commonly understood to mean a meek or gentle Spirit or disposition of
mind. As, however, the word Spirit, when connected with an abstract
noun, always refers to the Holy Spirit, as in the phrases Spirit of truth,
Spirit of wisdom, Spirit of adoption, Spirit of love, of fear, or of glory, it
should be so understood here. Paul asks whether he should come with
severity, or filled with the Spirit as the author of meekness. It is plain from
this, as from numerous other passages, that the apostles exercised the right
of discipline over all the churches; they could receive into the communion
of the church, or excommunicate from it, at their discretion. This
prerogative was inseparable from their infallibility as the messengers of
Christ, sent to establish and to administer his kingdom. The following
chapter furnishes a notable instance of the exercise of this authority.
 102

CHAPTER V.
The case of the incestuous member of the church, vs. 1-5.
Exhortation to purity, and to fidelity in discipline, vs. 6-13.

REPROOF FOR RETAINING AN UNWORTHY MEMBER

IN THE CHURCH. VS. 1-13.

The second evil in the church of Corinth, to which Paul directs his
attention, is allowing a man guilty of incest to remain in its communion. He
says it was generally reported that fornication was tolerated among them,
and even such fornication as was not heard of among the heathen, v. 1. He
reproves them for being inflated, instead of being humbled and penitent,
and excommunicating the offender, v. 2. As they had neglected their duty,
he determined, in the name of Christ, and as spiritually present in their
assembly, to deliver the man guilty of incest to Satan, vs. 3-5. He exhorts
to purity, in language borrowed from the Mosaic law respecting the
Passover. As during the feast of the Passover all leaven was to be removed
from the habitations of the Hebrews, so the Christian’s life should be a
perpetual paschal feast, all malice and hypocrisy being banished from the
hearts and from the assemblies of believers, vs. 6-8. He corrects or guards
against a misapprehension of his command not to associate with the
immoral. He shows that the command had reference to church communion,
and not to social intercourse, and therefore was limited in its application to
members of the church. Those out of the church, it was neither his nor
their prerogative to judge. They must be left to the judgment of God, vs.
9-13.

1. It is reported commonly (that there is) fornication among you, and such
fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one
should have his father’s wife.

Having dismissed the subject of the divisions in the church of Corinth, he

takes up the case of the incestuous member of that church. It is reported
 103
commonly (o[lwv ajkou>etai). This may mean what our translation
expresses, viz., it was a matter of notoriety that fornication existed among
them. %Olwv may have the force of omnino, ‘nothing is heard of among
you except, etc.’ Or it may mean, ‘In general, fornication is heard of among
you.’ That is, it was a common thing that fornication was heard of;
implying that the offense, in different forms, more or less prevailed. This
is the less surprising, considering how little sins of that class were
condemned among the heathen and how notorious Corinth was for its
licentiousness. To change the moral sentiments of a community is a
difficult and gradual work. The New Testament furnishes sad evidence,
that Jewish and Gentile converts brought into the church many of the
errors of their former belief and practice. The word fornication (pornei>a)
is used in a comprehensive sense, including all violations of the seventh
commandment. Here a particular case is distinguished as peculiarly
atrocious. The offense was that a man had married his step-mother. His
father’s wife is a Scriptural periphrase for step-mother, Leviticus 18:8.
That it was a case of marriage is to be inferred from the uniform use of the
phrase to have a woman in the New Testament, which always means to
marry. Matthew 14:4; 22:28; 1 Corinthians 7:2, 29. Besides, although the
connection continued, the offense is spoken of as past, vs. 2, 3. Such a
marriage Paul says was unheard of among the Gentiles, that is, it was
regarded by them with abhorrence. Cicero, pro Cluent. 5, 6, speaks of such
a connection as an incredible crime, and as, with one exception, unheard of.
It is probable from 2 Corinthians 7:12, that the father of the offender was
still alive. The crime, however, was not adultery, but incest; for otherwise
the apostle would not have spoken of it as an unheard of offense, and
made the atrocity of it to arise out of the relation of the woman to the
offender’s father. We have here therefore a clear recognition of the
perpetual obligation of the Levitical law concerning marriage. The
Scriptures are a perfect rule of duty; and therefore, if they do not prohibit
marriage between near relatives, such marriages are not sins in the sight of
God. To deny, therefore, the permanency of the law recorded in Leviticus
18, is not only to go contrary to the authority of the apostle, but also to
teach that there is for Christians no such crime as incest.

2. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath
done this deed might be taken away from among you.
 104

They were puffed up, i.e. elated with the conceit of their good estate,
notwithstanding they were tolerating in their communion a crime which
even the heathen abhorred. Some have endeavored to account for the
occurrence of such an offense, and for the remissness of the church in
relation to it, by supposing that both the offender and the church acted on
the principle taught by many of the Jews, that all bonds of relationship
were dissolved by conversion. The proselyte to Judaism became a new
creature. He received a new name. His father was no longer his father, or
his mother his mother. The Rabbins therefore taught that a proselyte might
lawfully marry any of his nearest kindred. It is possible that such a notion
may have partially prevailed among the Jewish portion of the church; but
not very probable,
1. Because of its absurdity;
2. Because its prevalence among the Jews was only after their
reprobation as a people;
3. Because the wiser class of the Jews themselves condemned it. It is
more probable, if the crime was defended at all, it was on the principle
that the Scriptures and nature condemn intermarriages on the ground
only of consanguinity and not also of affinity. A principle opposed to
Leviticus 18, and to what the apostle here teaches.

And have not rather mourned (ejpenqh>sate), i.e. grieved for yourselves.
Your condition, instead of filling you with pride, should humble you and
make you sad. That (i[na), not so that, but in order that, as expressing the
design which the apostle contemplated in their humiliation and sorrow.
Comp. John 11:15. ‘I would that ye were grieved and sorry for yourselves,
in order that he who had done this deed might be taken away.’ The vvv
may depend on a word implied. ‘Ye have not mourned, desiring that, etc.’
Chrysostom says the idea is, that they should have acted as they would
have done had a pestilence appeared among them which called for
mourning and supplication in order that it might be removed. It is a right
inherent in every society, and necessary for its existence, to judge of the
qualification of its own members; to receive those whom it judges worthy,
and to exclude the unworthy. This right is here clearly recognized as
belonging to the church. It is also clear from this passage that this right
 105
belongs to each particular church or congregation. The power was vested in
the church of Corinth, and not in some officer presiding over that church.
The bishop or pastor was not reproved for neglect of discipline; but the
church itself, in its organized capacity.

3-5. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in Spirit, have judged
already, as though I were present, (concerning) him that hath so done this
deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; when ye are gathered together,
and my Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an
one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the Spirit may be saved
in the day of the Lord Jesus.

These verses constitute one sentence, and must be taken together in order
to be understood. The construction of the principal clauses is plain. Paul
says, ‘I have determined to deliver this man unto Satan.’ All the rest is
subordinate and circumstantial. The connection of the subordinate clauses
is doubtful. Perhaps the best interpretation of the whole passage is the
following: ‘I, though absent as to the body, yet present as to the Spirit,
have determined as though present, in the name of the Lord Jesus, ye being
gathered together, and my Spirit being with you, with the power (i.e.
clothed or armed with the power) of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver this
man to Satan.’ There was to be a meeting of the church, where Paul,
spiritually present, would, in the name of Christ, and in the exercise of the
miraculous power with which he was invested, deliver the offender to the
power of Satan. The connection with what precedes is indicated by the
particle for. ‘I would ye were in a state of mind to remove this offender for
I have determined to cut him off.’ I verily (me>n ), or I at least. ‘Whatever
you do or leave undone, I at least will do my duty.’ Absent in body, but
present in Spirit. Neither Paul’s capacity nor his authority to judge, nor his
power to execute his judgment, depended on his bodily presence. He was
present in Spirit. This does not mean simply that he was present in mind,
as thinking of them and interested in their welfare; but it was a presence of
knowledge, authority, and power. Have judged already. That is, without
waiting either for your decision in the matter, or until I can be personally
present with you.

Him that hath so done this deed. This is one of the clauses, the
 106
construction of which is doubtful. Our translators insert the word
concerning, which has nothing to answer to it in the text, unless it be
considered a part of the translation of the preceding verb, (ke>krika,) I
have judged concerning, i.e. ‘I have judged or passed sentence upon him.’
This, however, creates embarrassment in the explanation of the fifth verse.
The best explanation is to make this clause the object of the verb to
deliver, in v. 5. ‘I have already determined to deliver him who did this
deed.’ As, however, so much intervenes between the object and the verb,
the object (such an one) is repeated in v. 5.

In the name of Christ, means by the authority of Christ, acting as his

representative. The phrase includes, on the one hand, the denial that the
thing done was done in virtue of his own authority; and on the other, the
claim of the right to act as the organ and agent of Christ. This clause may
be connected with what follows. ‘Ye being gathered in the name of Christ.’
Against this construction, however, it may be urged,
1. That the words would in that case most naturally have been differently
placed. That is, it would be more natural to say ‘Assembled in the
name of Christ,’ than ‘In the name of Christ assembled.’
2. It is a common formula for expressing apostolical authority, to say, ‘In
the name of Christ.’
3. The sense and parallelism of the clauses are better if these words are
connected with the main verb, ‘I have determined in the name of Christ
to deliver,’ etc. Paul was acting in the consciousness of the authority
received from Christ. Compare 2 Thessalonians 3:6. Acts 16:18. When
ye are gathered together, and my Spirit. The church was to be
convened, and Paul spiritually present.

The sentence was not to be passed or executed in secret, but openly. It

was to have the solemnity of a judicial proceeding, and, therefore, the
people were convened, though they were merely spectators. With the
power of our Lord Jesus Christ. This may be connected with the
immediately preceding words, ‘My Spirit invested with the power of
Christ being present.’ Or with what follows, ‘I have determined to deliver
such an one with the power of Christ to Satan.’ The sense is substantially
 107
the same. The sentence was to be passed and carried into effect in the
name of Christ and by his power.

To deliver such an one unto Satan. There have from the earliest times been
two prevalent interpretations of this expression. According to one view, it
means simply excommunication; according to the other, it includes a
miraculous subjection of the person to the power of Satan. Those who
regard it as merely excommunication, say that “to deliver to Satan”
answers to “might be taken away from you,” in v. 2, and therefore means
the same thing. The Corinthians had neglected to excommunicate this
offender, and Paul says he had determined to do it. Besides, it is argued
that excommumication is properly expressed by the phrase “to deliver to
Satan,” because, as the world is the kingdom of Satan, to cast a man out of
the church, was to cast him from the kingdom of Christ into the kingdom
of Satan. Comp. Colossians 1:13. In favor of the idea of something more
than excommunication, it may be argued,
1. That it is clearly revealed in scripture, that bodily evils are often
inflicted on men by the agency of Satan.
2. That the apostles were invested with the power of miraculously
inflicting such evils, Acts 5:1-11; 13:9-11; 2 Corinthians 10:8; 13:10;
3. That in 1 Timothy 1:20, the same formula occurs probably in the same
sense. Paul there says, he had delivered Hymeneus and Alexander unto
Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme.
4. There is no evidence that the Jews of that age ever expressed
excommunication by this phrase, and therefore it would not, in all
probability, be umderstood by Paul’s readers in that sense.
5. Excommunication would not have the effect of destroying the flesh, in
the sense in which that expression is used in the following clause.
Most commentators, therefore, agree in understanding the apostle to
threaten the infliction of some bodily evil, when he speaks of delivering
this offender to Satan. For the destruction of the flesh. This is by many
understood to mean, for the destruction of his corrupt nature, so that
the end contemplated is merely a moral one.
But as flesh here stands opposed to spirit, it most naturally means the
body. ‘The man was delivered to Satan that his body might be afflicted, in
 108
order that his soul might be saved.’ In the day of the Lord Jesus. That is,
the day when the Lord Jesus shall come the second time without sin unto
salvation. It appears from 2 Corinthians 7:9-12, that this solemn exercise
of the judicial power of the apostle, had its appropriate effect. It led the
offender himself, and the whole church, to sincere and deep repentance.

6. Your glorying (is) not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the
whole lump?

Your boasting, (kau>chma) ground of boasting. You have no good reason to

boast of your religious state; on the contrary, you have abundant reason to
be alarmed. Know ye not; do ye not consider the obvious and certain danger
of this evil spreading? A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. This
proverbial expression is not here intended to express the idea that one
corrupt member of the church depraves the whole, because, in the
following verses, in which the figure is carried out, the leaven is not a
person, but sin. The idea, therefore, is, that it is the nature of evil to
diffuse itself. This is true with regard to individuals and communities. A
single sin, however secret, when indulged, diffuses its corrupting influence
over the whole soul; it depraves the conscience; it alienates from God; it
strengthens all other principles of evil, while it destroys the efficacy of the
means of grace and the disposition to use them. It is no less true of any
community, that any one tolerated evil deteriorates its whole moral sense.

7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are
unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Purge out the old leaven is an exhortation to purity, as the old leaven is
afterwards said to be malice and wickedness. This leaven is said to be old,
because in the present apostate state of our nature, what is old is evil.
Hence, the old man is a scriptural designation of our corrupt nature. That
ye may be a new lump. New, i.e. pure — as the new man is the renewed
nature. As ye are unleavened. Leaven in this connection is a figurative
expression for sin. To say, therefore, that they were unleavened, is to say
that they were holy. This was their normal state — as Christians. A
Christian is a new or holy man. The argument, therefore, is drawn from the
acknowledged fact that Christians, as such, are holy. ‘Purge out the leaven
 109
of wickedness, that ye may be pure, for believers are holy.’ For even, (kai
ga<r,) or, for also. This is a second reason why they should be pure; for
Christ our passover is slain for us. Is slain; rather, is sacrificed, as vvv
means to kill and offer in sacrifice, or, to slay as a victim. When the
paschal lamb was slain, the Hebrews were required to purge out all leaven
from their houses, Exodus 12:15. The death of Christ imposes a similar
obligation on us to purge out the leaven of sin. Christ is our passover, not
because he was slain on the day on which the paschal lamb was offered,
but because he does for us what the paschal lamb did for the Hebrews. As
the blood of that lamb sprinkled on the door-posts secured exemption
from the stroke of the destroying angel, so the blood of Christ secures
exemption from the stroke of divine justice. Christ was slain for us, in the
same sense that the passover was slain for the Hebrews. It was a vicarious
death. As Christ died to redeem us from all iniquity, it is not only contrary
to the design of his death, but a proof that we are not interested in its
benefits, if we live in sin. Our passover viz., Christ. The words uJpe<r
hJmw~n, (for us), are omitted in all the older manuscripts, and are not
necessary to the sense.

8. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the
leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened (bread) of
sincerity and truth.

Let us therefore keep the feast. That is, since our passover Christ is slain,
let us keep the feast. This is not an exhortation to keep the Jewish
passover — because the whole context is figurative, and because the death
of Christ is no reason why the Corinthians should keep the Jewish
passover. Christians are nowhere exhorted to observe the festivals of the
old dispensation. Neither is the feast referred to the Lord’s Supper. There
is nothing in the connection to suggest a reference to that ordinance. A
feast was a portion of time consecrated to God. To keep the feast means,
‘Let your whole lives be as a sacred festival, i.e. consecrated to God.’ As a
feast lasting seven days was connected with the slaying of the paschal
lamb; so a life of consecration to God should be connected with the death
of our passover — Christ. This feast is not to be celebrated with the old or
corrupt leaven, which is explained to mean the leaven of malice and
wickedness. Ponhri>a, wickedness, is a stronger word than kaki>a,
 110
badness. Any one who does wrong is kako>v, bad; but he who does evil
with delight and with persistency, is ponhro>v. Hence Satan is called oJ
ponhro>v, “The evil one.” But with the unleavened bread of sincerity and
truth. Sincerity and truth are the unleavened bread with which the
Christian’s life-long feast should be celebrated. Sincerity, (eijlikri>neia,)
is purity, transparent clearness; something through which the sun may
shine without revealing any flaw. Truth is in scripture far more than
veracity. In its subjective sense, it means that inward state which answers
to the truth; that moral condition which is conformed to the law and
character of God.

9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

This may be understood to refer to what he had written above in this

epistle. Comp. Romans 16:22; 1 Thessalonians 5:27. Colossians 4:16,
where the epistle, hJ ejpistolh>, means the epistle he was then writing.
Calvin, Beza, and almost all the modern commentators, understand it to
refer to an epistle no longer extant. This is obviously the more natural
interpretation, first, because the words (ejn th~| ejpistolh~|), in the epistle,
would otherwise be altogether unnecessary. And, secondly, because this
epistle does not contain the general direction not to company with
fornicators; which, it would seem from what follows, the Corinthians had
misunderstood. There is, indeed, a natural indisposition in Christians to
admit that any of the inspired writings are lost. But nothing is more natural
than the assumption that the apostles wrote many short letters, not
intended as pastoral epistles designed for the church in all ages, but simply
to answer some question, or to give some direction relative to the peculiar
circumstances of some individual or congregation. ‘I wrote to you in the
epistle,’ naturally means here as in 2 Corinthians 7:8, the epistle which
you have already received, and not the one which he was then writing; and
it is not wise to depart from the natural meaning of the words simply to
avoid a conclusion we are unwilling to admit. The church has all the
inspired writings which God designed for her edification; and we should be
therewith content. Not to company with, (mh< sunanami>gnusqai), not to
be mixed up together with. That is, not to associate with. See 2
Thessalonians 3:14. This may have reference either to social intercourse or
to church communion. This indefinite command Paul explains, first, by
 111
stating that he did not mean to forbid social intercourse and then saying he
did intend to prohibit Christian fellowship with the wicked.

10. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the
covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out
of the world.

Not altogether. This limits the prohibition. The apostle did not intend to
prohibit all intercourse with the fornicators of this world. This would be
an impossibility; while in the world we must have more or less intercourse
with the men of the world. Or, the words (ouj pa>ntwv), not altogether,
may be connected with the words I wrote, in the sense of by no means.
Comp. Romans 3:9. ‘I by no means wrote to you not to associate with the
wicked.’ This, although perhaps the more common explanation, does not
give so good a sense. It is not so much a positive denial of having so
written, as a limitation of the application of his command, that the apostle
designs to give. The world means mankind as distinguished from the
church, Galatians 4:3. Ephesians 2:2. Colossians 2:8. The prohibition, such
as it was, was not limited to any one class of the immoral; it included all
classes. The covetous; those who will have more (pleone>kthv); and
especially those who defraud for the sake of gain. In the Scriptures the
controlling love of gain is spoken of as a sin specially heinous in the sight
of God. It is called idolatry, Ephesians 5:5, because wealth becomes the
object supremely loved and sought. The man, therefore, who sacrifices
duty to the acquisition of wealth; who makes gain the great object of his
pursuit, is a covetous man. He cannot be a Christian, and should not,
according to the apostle, be recognized as such.

Or with extortioners, i.e. the ravenous; those who exact what is not justly
due to them, or more than is justly due. The sin is not confined to
exactions by force or open robbery, but to all undue exactions. The man
who takes advantage of another’s poverty, or of his necessities, to secure
exorbitant gain, is an extortioner. Or with idolaters, those who either
professedly worship false gods, or who do what, in its own nature, and in
the common judgment of men, amounts to such worship. This is said to be
the earliest known instance of the use of the word eijdwlola>trhv; it is
never used in the LXX, although ei]dwlon is constantly employed in that
 112
version in the sense of false gods. For then ye must needs go out of the
world. This is the reason why the apostle did not prohibit all intercourse
with wicked men. We should have to seek another world to live in.

11. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is
called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or
a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

But now (nuni< de> ). If taken in the ordinary sense, these particles refer to
time. ‘In the former epistle I wrote to you so and so, but now I write to
you, etc.’ They may have an inferential sense — therefore. ‘Since ye
cannot go out of the world, therefore I wrote unto you.’ The apostle is
explaining the meaning of what he had written. ‘I did not write this, but I
wrote, i.e. I meant, this.’ This explanation best suits the context, and
agrees better with the force of the tense (e]graya), here used; for although
the aorist of this verb is used in the epistolary style in reference to the
letter in the process of writing, it is not used to express what is about to be
written. The command is not to associate with any one who is called a
brother, and yet is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer
(slanderer), or a drunkard, or an extortioner. A man in professing to be a
Christian professes to renounce all these sins; if he does not act
consistently with his profession, he is not to be recognized as a Christian.
We are not to do any thing which would sanction the assumption that the
offenses here referred to are tolerated by the gospel. It may appear strange
that Paul should assume that any one calling himself a Christian could be
an idolater. By idolatry, however, he understands not merely the
intentional and conscious worship of false gods, but doing any thing
which, according to the common judgment of men, expresses such
worship. Thus eating sacrifices within the precincts of a temple was an act
of heathen worship, as much as partaking of the Lord’s supper is an act of
Christian worship. And yet some of the Corinthians did not hesitate to eat
of heathen sacrifices under those circumstances, 10:14-22. The principle
laid down by the apostle is, that to join in the religious rites of any people
is to join in their worship, whether we so intend it or not.

With such an one no not to eat. This does not refer to the Lord’s supper,
which is never designated as a meal. The meaning is, that we are not to
 113
recognize such a man in any way as a Christian, even by eating with him.
It is not the act of eating with such persons that is forbidden. Our Lord ate
with publicans and sinners, but he did not thereby recognize them as his
followers. So we may eat with such persons as are here described,
provided we do not thereby recognize their Christian character. This is not
a command to enforce the sentence of excommunication pronounced by the
church, by a denial of all social intercourse with the excommunicated. The
command is simply that we are not, in any way, to recognize openly
wicked men as Christians. This passage, therefore, affords no plea for the
tyranny of Romanists in refusing all the necessaries of life to those whom
they cast out of the church.

12. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye
judge them that re within?

Those without; those out of the church. Mark 4:11. Colossians 4:5; 1
Thessalonians 4:12. The command of the apostle had reference only to
those within the church, for it was not his prerogative to judge those that
are without. The Corinthians acted on the same principle. They confined
church discipline to church members, and therefore should not have
understood his injunction not to company with the wicked to apply to
others than to those within the church.

13. But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from
among yourselves that wicked person.

God, and not the church, is the judge of those who are without. The verb
may be accented so as to express either the present or the future. God
judges (kri>nei); or, God will judge (krine~i). The present gives the better
sense, as expressing the divine prerogative, and not merely the assurance of
a future judgment. Therefore put away, literally, according to the common
text (kai< exarei~te), and ye shall put away; which seems to have been
borrowed from Deuteronomy 24:7. The better reading is (ejxa>rate) put
away. It is a simple imperative injunction, or necessary application of the
principle of Christian communion just laid down. This passage is not
inconsistent with the interpretation given to verses 3-5. In consequence of
their neglect of duty, Paul determined to deliver the incestuous member of
 114
the Corinthian church to Satan. He calls upon them to recognize the
validity of that sentence, and to carry it into effect. The sentence was
pronounced they, so far as it involved their communion, were to execute it.
 115

CHAPTER VI.
This chapter consists of two distinct paragraphs. The first, vs. 1-11, relates
to lawsuits before heathen magistrates. The second, vs. 12-20, to the abuse
which some had made of the principle, “All things are lawful.”

ON GOING TO LAW BEFORE THE HEATHEN. VS. 1-11.

Paul expresses surprise that any Christian should prosecute a fellow

Christian before a heathen judge, v. 1. If Christians are destined to judge
the world, and even angels, they may surely settle among themselves their
worldly affairs, vs. 2, 3. If they had such suits must they appoint those
whom the church could not esteem to decide them? Was there not one man
among themselves able to act as a judge? vs. 4-6. It was a great evil that
they had such lawsuits. It would be better to submit to injustice, v. 7.
Instead, however, of submitting to wrong, they committed it, v. 8. He
solemnly assures them that the unjust, or rapacious, or corrupt should not
inherit the kingdom of God, vs. 9, 10. They had been such, but as
Christians they were washed from these defilements, and justified through
Christ and by his Spirit, v. 11.

1. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the
unjust, and not before the saints?

The third evil in the church of Corinth which the apostle endeavors to
correct, was the prosecuting legal suits before heathen judges. There was
no necessity for this practice. The Roman laws allowed the Jews to settle
their disputes about property by arbitration among themselves. And the
early Christians, who were not distinguished as a distinct class from the
Jews, had no doubt the same privilege. It is not necessary, however, to
assume that the apostle has reference here to that privilege. It was enough
that these civil suits might be arranged without the disgraceful spectacle of
Christian suing Christian before heathen magistrates. The Rabbins say, “It
is a statute which binds all Israelites, that if one Israelite has a cause
 116
against another, it must not be prosecuted before the Gentiles.”
Eisenmenger’s Entdeckt. Judenth. 2. p. 427.

Dare any of you? Is any one so bold as thus to shock the Christian sense
of propriety? Having a matter. The Greek phrase (pra~gma e]cein) means
to have a suit, which is obviously the sense here intended. To go to law
before the unjust. It is plain that by the unjust are meant the heathen. But
why are they so called? As the terms holy and righteous are often used in a
technical sense to designate the professed people of God without reference
to personal character; so the terms sinners and unjust are used to designate
the heathen as distinguished from the people of God. The Jews as a class
were holy, and the Gentiles were unholy; though many of the latter were
morally much better than many of the former. In Galatians 2:15, Paul says
to Peter, “We are by nature Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles;”
meaning thereby simply that they were not Gentiles. The reason why the
heathen as such are called the unjust, or sinners, is that according to the
Scriptures the denial of the true God, and the worship of idols, is the
greatest unrighteousness and therefore the heathen, because heathen, are
called the unrighteous. The word unjust is too limited a word to answer
fully to the Greek term (a]dikov), which in its scriptural sense means
wicked, not conformed to the Law of God. In this verse the opposite term,
saints, or the holy, designates Christians as a class; and, therefore, the
unjust must mean the heathen as a class. The complaint against the
Corinthians was not that they went to law before unjust judges, but that
they appealed to heathen judges. It is true their being heathen proved them
to be unrighteous in the scriptural sense of the term; but it was not their
moral character, so much as their religious status, that was the ground of
the complaint. It was indeed not to be expected that men governed by
heathen laws and principles of morals, would be as fair and just as those
governed by Christian principles; but what Paul complained of was, not
that the Corinthians could not get justice at the hands of heathen
magistrates, but that they acted unworthily of their dignity as Christians in
seeking justice from such a source. Paul himself appealed to Cesar. It was,
therefore, no sin in his eyes to seek justice from a heathen judge, when it
could not otherwise be obtained. But it was a sin and a disgrace in his
estimation for Christians to appeal to heathen magistrates to settle
disputes among themselves.
 117

2. Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world
shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Do you not know? a form of expression often used by the apostle when he
wishes to bring to mind some important truth, which his readers knew but
disregarded. It was a conceded point, one which entered into the common
faith of Christians, that the saints are to judge the world. The saints (oiJ
a[gioi), the people of God, who are called saints because separated from
the world and consecrated to his service. Those, therefore, who are of the
world and devoted to its pursuits, are not saints. The saints shall judge the
world. This does not mean that the time would come when Christians
would become magistrates; nor that the conduct of the saints would
condemn the world, as it is said the Queen of the South would condemn
those who refused to listen to the words of Christ, Matthew 12:42. The
context and Spirit of the passage require that it should be understood of
the future and final judgment. Saints are said to sit in judgment on that
great day for two reasons; first, because Christ, who is to be the judge, is
the head and representative of his people, in whom they reign and judge.
The exaltation and dominion of Christ are their exaltation and dominion.
This is the constant representation of Scripture, Ephesians 2:6. In
Hebrews 2:5-9 the declaration that all things are subject to man, is said to
be fulfilled in all things being made subject to Christ. Secondly, because his
people are to be associated with Christ in his dominion. They are joint
heirs with him, Romans 8:17. If we suffer, we shall reign with him, 2
Timothy 2:12. In Daniel 7:22 it was predicted that judgment (the right and
power to judge) should be given to the saints of the Most High. Comp.
Matthew 19:38. Luke 22:30. Revalation 2:26, 27. If then, asks the apostle,
such a destiny as this awaits you, are ye unfit to decide the smallest
matters? If the world (mankind) shall be judged by you (ejn uJmi~n ), i.e.
before you as judges. Are ye unworthy (ajna>xioi), i.e. of too little weight or
value, having neither the requisite dignity nor ability. Unworthy of the
smallest matters. The word (krith>rion), here rendered matters, in the
sense of causes, or matters for judgment, means,
1. A criterion or test; a rule of judgment.
2. A tribunal or place of judgment, and then, the court or assembled
 118
judges. Exodus 21:6. Judges 5:10. Daniel 7:10, and in the New
Testament, James 2:6.
3. The trial, i.e. the process of judgment.
4. The cause itself, or matters to be tried. This last sense is doubtful,
although it is generally adopted here because it suits so well the fourth
verse, where the same word occurs.
The second sense would suit this verse. ‘If ye are to sit with Christ on the
seat of universal judgment, are ye unworthy of the lowest judgment seats.’
But the fourth verse is in favor of the explanation adopted in our version.
‘Are ye unfit for the least causes?’

3. Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that
pertain to this life?

As, according to Scripture, only the fallen angels are to be judged in the last
day, most commentators suppose the word must here be restricted to that
class. Not only men, but fallen angels are to stand before that tribunal on
which Christ and his church shall sit in judgment. If agreeably to the
constant usage of the Scriptures, according to which (as remarked above,
4:9) the word when unqualified means good angels, it be understood of that
class here, then the explanation is probably to be sought in the
comprehensive sense of the word to judge. As kings were always judges,
and as the administration of justice was one of the principal functions of
their office, hence to rule and to judge are in Scripture often convertible
terms. To judge Israel, and to rule Israel, mean the same thing. And in
Matthew 19:28, “sitting on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of
Israel,” means presiding over the twelve tribes. So in the case before us,
“Know ye not that we shall judge angels?” may mean, ‘Know ye not that
we are to be exalted above the angels, and preside over them; shall we not
then preside over earthly things?’ This explanation avoids the difficulty of
supposing that the good angels are to be called into judgment; and is
consistent with what the Bible teaches of the subordination of angels to
Christ, and to the church in him.

4. If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to

judge who are least esteemed in the church.
 119

Paul laments that there were litigations among them; but if they could not
be avoided, Christians should act in reference to them in a manner
consistent with their high destiny. Here the word (krith>ria), rendered
judgments, seems so naturally to mean causes, things to be tried, that that
sense of the word is almost universally assumed. It may, however, mean
trials, judicial processes; which is more in accordance with the established
use of the words. Set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
The original admits of this translation. If the passage be so rendered, then
it has a sarcastic tone. ‘Set your least esteemed members to decide such
matters.’ It may, however, be read interrogatively, ‘Do ye set as judges
those least esteemed in (i.e. by) the church (that is, the heathen)?’ This
translation is generally preferred as best in keeping with the context. The
sentence is emphatic. ‘Those despised (see 1:28) by the church, — those
do you set to judge?’ It is an expression of surprise at their acting so
unworthily of their high calling.

5. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you?
no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

I speak to your shame. That is, I desire to produce in you a sense of

shame. This may refer either to what precedes or to what follows. It was
adapted to make them ashamed that they had acted so unworthily of their
dignity as Christians; and it was no less disgraceful to them to suppose
that there was not in the church a single man fit to act as arbitrator. Who
shall be able. The future here expresses what should or may happen.
Between his brethren; literally, between his brother; i.e. between his
complaining brother and him against whom the complaint was brought.

6. But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.

Instead of referring the matter to the arbitration of a judicious brother, ye

go to law, and that before unbelievers. There are here two grounds of
complaint. First, that they went to law (kri>nesqai) instead of resorting
to arbitration (diakri~nai). Secondly, that they made unbelievers their
judges. By unbelievers are to be understood the heathen. In this connection
the heathen are designated under one aspect, the unjust; under another, the
 120
despised; and under a third, the unbelieving, i.e. not Christians — but, as
the implication in this particular case is, pagans. And that (kai< tou~to), a
form of expression often used when particular stress is to be laid on the
circumstance indicated.

7. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law

one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather
(suffer yourselves to) be defrauded?

Now therefore (h]dh me<n ou+n), already indeed therefore. That is, these
lawsuits are already, or in themselves (o[lwv), an evil irrespective of their
being conducted before heathen judges. The word h[tthma does not so
properly mean fault as loss or evil. It is a loss or evil to you to have these
litigations. See Romans 11:12, where the rejection of the Jews is called
their (h[tthma) loss. Why do you not, etc. That is, why, instead of going to
law with your brethren, do you not rather submit to injustice and robbery?
This is a clear intimation that, under the circumstances in which the
Corinthians were placed, it was wrong to go to law, even to protect
themselves from injury. That this is not to be regarded as a general rule of
Christian conduct is plain, because, under the old dispensation, God
appointed judges for the administration of justice; and because Paul
himself did not hesitate to appeal to Cesar to protect himself from the
injustice of his countrymen.

8. Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that (your) brethren.

Instead of having reached that state of perfection in which ye can patiently

submit to injustice, ye are yourselves unjust and fraudulent. This must
have been the case with some of them, otherwise there would be no
occasion for these lawsuits. Their offense was aggravated, because their
own brethren were the object of their unjust exactions.

9, 10. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the
kingdom of God.
 121

The tendency to divorce religion from morality has manifested itself in all
ages of the world, and under all forms of religion. The pagan, the Jew, the
Mohammedan, the nominal Christian, have all been exact in the
performance of religious services, and zealous in the assertion and defense
of what they regarded as religious truth, while unrestrained in the
indulgence of every evil passion. This arises from looking upon religion as
an outward service, and God as a being to be feared and propitiated, but
not to be loved and obeyed. According to the gospel, all moral duties are
religious services; and piety is the conformity of the soul to the image and
will of God. So that to be religious and yet immoral is, according to the
Christian system, as palpable a contradiction as to be good and wicked. It
is evident that among the members of the Corinthian church, there were
some who retained their pagan notion of religion, and who professed
Christianity as a system of doctrine and as a form of worship, but not as a
rule of life. All such persons the apostle warned of their fatal mistake. He
assures them that no immoral man, — no man who allows himself the
indulgence of any known sin, can be saved. This is one of the first
principles of the gospel, and therefore the apostle asks, Know ye not that
the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Are ye Christians at
all, and yet ignorant of this first principle of the religion you profess? The
unrighteous in this immediate connection, means the unjust; those who
violate the principles of justice in their dealings with their fellow-men. It is
not the unjust alone, however, who are to be thus debarred from the
Redeemer’s kingdom — but also those who break any of the
commandments of God, as this and other passages of Scripture distinctly
teach.

Believers are, in the Bible, often called heirs. Their inheritance is a

kingdom; that kingdom which God has established, and which is to be
consummated in heaven, Luke 12:32. Matthew 24:34, etc. etc. From this
inheritance all the immoral, no matter how zealous they may be in the
profession of the truth, or how assiduous in the performance of religious
services, shall be excluded. Let it also be remembered that immorality,
according to the Bible, does not consist exclusively in outward sins, but
also in sins of the heart; as covetousness, malice, envy, pride, and such
like, Galatians 5:21. No wonder that the disciples, on a certain occasion,
 122
asked their master, Lord, are there few that be saved? or that the Lord
answered them by saying, “Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it,” Luke 13:24.

11. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified,
but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our
God.

And such were some of you. This is understood by many as equivalent to

Such were you. The word (tine>v) being redundant, or the idea being, ‘Some
were impure, some drunkards, some violent, etc., or tau~ta> tinev being
taken together as equivalent to toiou~toi. The natural explanation is, that
the apostle designedly avoided charging the gross immoralities just referred
to upon all the Corinthian Christians in their previous condition. With
regard to the three terms which follow, washed, sanctified, justified, they
may be taken, as by Calvin and others, to express the same idea under
different aspects. That idea is, that they had been converted, or completely
changed. They had put off the old man, and put on the new man. Their
sins, considered as filth, had been washed away; considered as pollution,
they had been purged or purified; considered as guilt, they had been
covered with the righteousness of God, Romans 1:17. The majority of
commentators take the several terms separately, each expressing a distinct
idea. In what precise sense each of these words is to be understood,
becomes, men, somewhat doubtful.

But ye are washed. The word here used (ajpelou>sasqe) is in the middle
voice, and therefore may be rendered, ye have washed yourselves, or,
permitted yourselves to be washed; or, as the majority of commentators
prefer, on account of the following passives, ye were washed. This use of
the First Aorist Middle in a passive sense is very unusual, but not
unauthorized; see 1 Corinthians 10:2. It does not seem to be of much
moment whether the word be taken here as active or as passive, for the
same thing may be expressed in either form. Men are called upon to wash
away their sins, Acts 22:16; to put off the old man, etc. and to put on the
new man, Ephesians 4:22, 24; although the change expressed by these
terms is elsewhere referred to God. The reason of this is, that a human and
a divine agency are combined in the effects thus produced. We work our
 123
own salvation, while God works in us, Philippians 2:12, 13. With equal
propriety, therefore, Paul might say to the Corinthians, ‘Ye washed
yourselves;’ or, ‘Ye were washed.’ To wash means to purify, and is
frequently used in Scripture to express moral or spiritual purification.
Isaiah 1:16, “Wash ye, make you clean.” Psalms 51:7, “Wash me, and I
shall be whiter than snow.” Jeremiah 4:14. In these and many other
passages the word expresses general purification, without exclusive
reference to guilt or to pollution. There is no reason why it should not be
taken in this general sense here, and the phrase be rendered, either, ‘Ye
have purified yourselves,’ or, ‘Ye are purified.’ The reference which so
many assume to baptism, does not seem to be authorized by any thing in
the context.

But ye are sanctified. This clause is either an amplification of the preceding

one, expressing one aspect or effect of the washing spoken of, viz., their
holiness; or, it is to be understood of their separation and consecration. ‘Ye
have not only been purified, but also set apart as a peculiar people.’ In
Scripture, any thing is said to be sanctified that is devoted to the service of
God. Thus, God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, Genesis 2:3.
Moses sanctified the people, Exodus 19:14, etc. etc.

But ye are justified. As to justify in Scripture always means to pronounce

righteous, or to declare just in the sight of the law, it must be so
understood here. The Corinthians had not only been purified and
consecrated, but also justified, i.e. clothed in the righteousness of Christ,
and on that account accepted as righteous in the sight of God. They were
therefore under the highest possible obligation not to relapse into their
former state of pollution and condemnation.

In the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. These clauses
are not to be restricted to the preceding word, as though the meaning were,
‘Ye have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of
our God.’ They belong equally to all three of the preceding terms. The
believers were indebted for the great change which they had experienced;
for their washing, sanctification, and justification, to Christ and to the
Holy Ghost. The Spirit had applied to them the redemption purchased by
Christ. In the name of the Lord Jesus. “The name of God,” or “of Christ,”
 124
is often a paraphrase for God or Christ himself. To call upon the name of
God is to call on God. To baptize unto the name of Christ, and to baptize
unto Christ, are interchanged as synonymous expressions. So here, to be
justified or sanctified in the name of Christ, means simply by Christ; see
John 20:31, “That believing ye might have life through his name.” Acts
10:43, “That through his name whoso believeth in him might have
remission of sins.” Though these forms of expression are substantially the
same as to their import, yet the “name of God” means not strictly God
himself, but God as known and worshipped. The Holy Ghost is called the
Spirit of our God; that is, the Spirit of our reconciled God and Father, by
whom that Spirit is sent in fulfillment of the promise of the Father to the
Son. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law in order that we
might receive the promise of the Spirit, Galatians 3:13, 14.

ABUSE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. VS. 12-20.

The principle of Christian liberty, or the doctrine that “all things are
lawful,” is to be limited in its application to things indifferent; first, by
considerations of expediency; and secondly, by regard to our own spiritual
freedom, v. 12. From that principle it is legitimate to infer, because of the
adaptation of the stomach to food, that all things suited for food are
lawful. The one is obviously designed for the other, during the temporary
condition of the present life. But no such application of the principle is
allowable in the case of fornication; because the body is not designed for
that end, but belongs to the Lord, with whom it stands in an indissoluble
connection, so that he who raised him up will also raise up our bodies, vs.
13, 14. It is because of this intimate relation of our bodies to Christ as his
members, that fornication is so great a crime, inconsistent with our union
to him as partakers of his Spirit, vs. 15-17. It is, in a peculiar manner, a sin
against the body, destructive of its very nature, v. 18. The body is a
temple in which the Spirit dwells, but it ceases to be such if profaned by
licentiousness, v. 19. Believers must remember that they, even their
bodies, are the objects of redemption, having been purchased by the blood
of Christ, and therefore they should be devoted to his glory, v. 20.

12. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things
are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
 125

Having in the preceding paragraph declared that the immoral cannot inherit
the kingdom of God, and having given special prominence to sins against
the seventh commandment, the Apostle comes in this paragraph to
consider the ground on which the violations of that commandment were
defended or palliated. That ground was a gross perversion of the principle
of Christian liberty. Paul was accustomed to say in reference to the
ceremonial or positive enactments of the Jewish law, and especially in
reference to the distinction between clean and unclean means, “All things
are lawful to me.” As the Greeks and Romans generally regarded
fornication as belonging to the class of things indifferent, that is, not
immoral in themselves; it is not surprising that some of the Corinthians
educated in that belief should retain and act on the principle even after
their profession of Christianity. They reasoned from analogy. As it is right
to eat all kinds of food which are adapted to the stomach, so it is right to
gratify any other natural propensity. Paul’s answer to this argument is
twofold. He first shows that the principle of Christian liberty in things
indifferent is to be restricted in its application; and secondly, that there is
no analogy between the cases mentioned. Food is a thing indifferent;
whereas fornication is in its own nature a profanation and a crime.

The first limitation to which the principle “all things are lawful” is subject
in its application to things indifferent, is expediency. All lawful things are
not expedient. It is both absurd and wicked to do any thing which is
injurious to ourselves or others, simply because it is not in its own nature
sinful. This principle of expediency the Apostle enforces at length in
Romans 14:15-23, and 1 Corinthians 8:7-13, and 10:23-33. The second
limitation of our liberty in the use of things indifferent, is self-respect.
Because it is lawful to eat, that is no reason why I should make myself a
slave to my appetite. “I will not,” says Paul, “be brought under the power
of any thing.” I will not make myself its slave. It is of great importance to
the moral health of the soul that it should preserve its self-control, and not
be in subjection to any appetite or desire, however innocent that desire in
itself may be. This is a scriptural rule which Christians often violate. They
are slaves to certain forms of indulgence, which they defend on the ground
that they are not in themselves wrong; forgetting that it is wrong to be in
bondage to any appetite or habit.
 126

13. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both
it and them. Now the body (is) not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the
Lord for the body.

Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats. The one is evidently adapted
and designed for the other. It is a legitimate inference from this constitution
that it is lawful to eat, and to eat every thing adapted for food. But this is a
mere temporary arrangement. God will destroy both it and them. The time
shall come when men shall no more be sustained by food, but shall be as
the angels of God. The fact that the present constitution of the body is
temporary, is a proof that meats belong to the class of things indifferent.
They can have no influence on the eternal destiny of the body. This is not
true with regard to fornication. The body was never designed for
promiscuous concubinage. And such a use of it is inconsistent with the
design of its creation and with its future destiny.

The body is for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. The one stands in an
intimate relation to the other. The body is designed to be a member of
Christ, and the dwelling-place of his Spirit. And he so regards it; redeeming
it with his blood, uniting it to himself as a member of his mystical body,
making it an instrument of righteousness unto holiness. With this design of
the body the sin in question is absolutely incompatible, and destructive of
the relation which the body sustains to the Lord.

14. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his
own power. 5

The destiny of the body being what is stated in the preceding verse, it is
not to perish, but is to share in the resurrection of Christ. “He who raised
Christ from the dead shall also quicken our mortal bodies by his Spirit that
dwelleth in us,” Romans 8:11. This verse is parallel to the second clause of
v. 13. Of the stomach and meats, it is said, God will destroy both it and
them; of the Lord and the body it is said, As he raised up the one, he will
also raise up the other. The cases, therefore, are widely different. The
relation between our organs of digestion and food is temporary; the
relation between Christ and the body is permanent. What concerns the
 127
former relation is a matter of indifference; what concerns the other touches
the groundwork of our nature and the design for which we were created.
On this destiny of the body compare 15:15, 20, 35-56. Philippians 3:21;
Romans 8:11; 2 Corinthians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 4:14.

15, 16. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I
then take the members of Christ, and make (them) the members of an
harlot? God forbid. What! know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot
is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

The design of these verses is to establish two points. First, that the
relation between our bodies and Christ is of the intimate and vital character
which had just been stated. And second, that the sin in question was
inconsistent with that relation, and incompatible with it.

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? This is a
conceded and familiar point of Christian doctrine, one with which they
were supposed to be acquainted; and which proved all that the Apostle
had said of the relation between the body and Christ. Our bodies are the
members of Christ, because they belong to him, being included in the
redemption effected by his blood; and also because they are so united to
him as to be partakers of his life. It is one of the prominent doctrines of
the Bible that the union between Christ and his people includes a
community of life; and it is clearly taught that this life pertains to the body
as well as to the soul, Romans 8:6-11. Ephesians 2:6, 7; 5:30. This is the
truth which the Apostle recalls to the minds of the Corinthians and makes
it the ground of his indignant condemnation of the sin of which he is
speaking. That fornication is incompatible with the relation of the bodies
of believers to Christ, arises out of the peculiar nature of that sin. The
parties to it become partakers of a common life. Whether we can
understand this or not, it is the doctrine of the Bible. Therefore as we
cannot be partakers of the life of Christ, and of the life of Belial, so neither
can our bodies be the members of Christ, and at the same time have a
common life with “one who is a sinner,” in the scriptural sense of that
phrase.

17. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one Spirit.

 128

That is, has one Spirit with him. This does not mean has the same
disposition or state of mind, but the same principle of life, v. 12, the Holy
Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given without measure unto Christ, and from him
is communicated to all his people who are thereby brought into a common
life with him, Romans 8:9, 10; 1 Corinthians 12:13; John 17:21, 23;
Ephesians 4:4; 5:30. This being the case, it imposes the highest conceivable
obligation not to act inconsistently with this intimate and exalting
relationship.

18. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth, is without the body; but he
that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body.

This does not teach that fornication is greater than any other sin; but it
does teach that it is altogether peculiar in its effects upon the body; not so
much in its physical as in its moral and spiritual effects. The idea runs
through the Bible that there is something mysterious in the commerce of
the sexes, and in the effects which flow from it. Every other sin, however
degrading and ruinous to the health, even drunkenness, is external to the
body, that is, external to its life. But fornication, involving as it does a
community of life, is a sin against the body itself, because incompatible, as
the Apostle had just taught, with the design of its creation, and with its
immortal destiny.

19. What! know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
(which is) in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

There are two things characteristic of a temple. First, it is sacred as a

dwelling-place of God, and therefore cannot be profaned with impunity.
Second, the proprietorship of a temple is not in man, but in God. Both
these things are true of the believer’s body. It is a temple because the Holy
Ghost dwells in it; and because it is not his own. It belongs to God. As it
is a temple of the Holy Ghost, it cannot be profaned without incurring
great and peculiar guilt. And as it belongs in a peculiar sense to God, it is
not at our own disposal. It can only be used for the purposes for which he
designed it.
 129
20. For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and
in your Spirit, which are God’s. 6

Ye are bought. The verb is in the past tense, hjgora>sqhte, ye were bought,
i.e. delivered by purchase. The deliverance of men from the power and
condemnation of sin was not effected by power or by truth, but by a
ransom. We were justly held in bondage. We were under the penalty of the
law, and until that penalty was satisfied, we could not be delivered. The
blood of Christ is our ransom, because it met all the demands of justice.

The proprietorship in believers asserted at the close of the preceding verse,

does not arise from creation or preservation, but from redemption. ‘Ye are
not your own, for ye are bought with a price,’ Romans 6:17. Galatians
3:13. Ephesians 3:13. Acts 20:28. The price of redemption is the blood of
Christ, Matthew 20:28; Romans 3:24. Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18, 19, and
everywhere where the subject is spoken of in Scripture. Therefore, i.e.
because redeemed, and because redeemed at such a price; glorify God, i.e.
honor him, and so act as to cause him to be honored by others. In your
body as a temple consecrated to his worship, and employed only in his
service.

The following words, and in your spirit, which are God’s, may have been
added, because the body alone is not the object of redemption, and
therefore the obligation of the redeemed to be devoted to the service of
God pertains also to the soul. As however these words are not found in
the great majority of the oldest manuscripts, most modern editors omit
them.
 130

CHAPTER VII.
Instructions relative to marriage, vs. 1-17. The Gospel was not designed to
interfere with the ordinary relations of men, vs. 18-24.
Concerning virgins and widows, 25-40.

INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING MARRIAGE

AND OTHER SOCIAL RELATIONS. VS 1-24.

The Corinthians had written to the Apostle, seeking his advice in reference
to the state of things in their church. It appears from this chapter that one
of the subjects about which they were in difficulty, and respecting which
they sought direction, was marriage. On this subject the Apostle tells
them,
1st. That, as they were situated, marriage was inexpedient to them. But as
a general law every man should have his own wife, and every woman her
own husband, vs. 1, 2.
2nd. That the obligation of the parties to the marriage covenant is mutual;
the one therefore has no right to desert the other. Temporary separation,
for the purpose of devotion, is allowable; but nothing more, vs. 3-5.
3rd. What he had said either in reference to marriage or temporary
separation, was not to be considered as any thing more than advice. He
could only tell them what, under the circumstances, was expedient; each
one must act according to the grace given to him, vs. 6-9.
4th. With regard to the married the Lord had already taught that divorce
was unlawful; the husband could not put away his wife, nor the wife her
husband, vs. 10, 11.
5th. As to the case not specially contemplated in our Lord’s instructions,
where one of the parties was a Christian and the other a Jew or Pagan, the
Apostle teaches, first, that if the unbelieving party is willing to remain in
the marriage relation, it should not be dissolved. Secondly, that if the
unbeliever departed, and refused to continue in the marriage connection,
the marriage contract was thereby dissolved, and the believing party was at
liberty, vs. 12-15.
 131
6th. Such separations, however, are, if possible, to be avoided, because the
gospel is a gospel of peace. It was not designed to break up any of the
lawful relations of life. As a general rule, therefore, every man should
continue in the same condition in which he was called. If a man was called
being circumcised, his becoming a Christian did not impose upon him the
obligation to become uncircumcised; and if called being uncircumcised, he
was not required to be circumcised. In like manner, if a slave is called to be
a Christian, he may remain a slave, because every slave is the Lord’s free
man, and every free man is the Lord’s slave. These social distinctions do
not affect our relation to Christ. Redemption, in raising all to the relation
of slaves to Christ, that is, making them all his property, has raised them
into a sphere where all earthly distinctions are insignificant. Therefore, let
every man abide in the relation wherein he was called, vs. 16-24.

1. Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: (It is) good for a
man not to touch a woman.

It is evident that there was a diversity of opinion on the subject of

marriage among the Corinthian Christians. Probably some of them of
Jewish origin thought it obligatory, while other members of the church
thought it undesirable, if not wrong. Paul says, It is good for a man not to
marry. The word good (kalo>n) here means expedient, profitable, as it
does frequently elsewhere, Matthew 17:4; 18:8, 9; 1 Corinthians 9:15.
That the Apostle does not mean to teach either that marriage is morally an
evil as compared with celibacy, or that as a general rule it is inexpedient, is
evident.
1. Because in the following verse he declares directly the reverse.
2. Because in v. 26 he expressly states that “the present distress,” or the
peculiar circumstances of trial and difficulty in which the Christians of
that day were placed, was the ground of his advice on this subject.
3. Because in 1 Timothy 4:3, he specifies “forbidding to marry” as one of
the signs of the great apostasy which he predicted was to occur.
4. Because marriage is a divine institution, having its foundation in the
nature of man, and therefore must be a good. God accordingly declared,
“It is not good for man to be alone,” i.e. to be unmarried, Genesis 2:18.
Paul cannot be understood in a sense which would make him directly
 132
contradict the word of God.
5. Because throughout the Scriptures marriage is spoken of as honorable,
Hebrews 13:4, and is used to illustrate the relation between God and
his people, and between Christ and his church.
6. Because all experience teaches that it is, as a general rule, necessary to
the full development of the character of the individual, and absolutely
essential to the virtue and the well-being of society. To depreciate
marriage would be to go contrary both to nature and revelation, and
such depreciation has never failed to be attended by the most injurious
consequences to the church and to the world.
If, therefore, Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, we must
understand the Apostle as intending to say: ‘Considering your peculiar
circumstances, it is expedient for you not to marry.’

2. Nevertheless, (to avoid) fornication, let every man have his own wife,
and let every woman have her own husband.

As a general rule, says the Apostle, let every man have his own wife, and
every woman her own husband. Whatever exceptions there may be to this
rule in particular cases, or in peculiar conditions of society or of the
church, the rule itself stands. There is undoubtedly an increase of worldly
care and anxiety connected with marriage, and therefore it may be
expedient for those to remain single to whom freedom from such cares is
specially important. This however does not alter the great law of God, that
it is not good for man to be alone. Celibacy is to be the exception, not the
rule.

3-5. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: 7 and likewise
also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body,
but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own
body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except (it be) with consent
for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come
together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

There is abundant evidence in the New Testament of the early

manifestation of those principles of asceticism which soon produced such
 133
wide-spread effects, and which to so great a degree modified the reigning
Spirit of the church. The idea that marriage was a less holy state than
celibacy, naturally led to the conclusion that married persons ought to
separate; and it soon came to be regarded as an evidence of eminent
spirituality when such separation was final. The Apostle teaches that
neither party has the right to separate from the other; that no separation is
to be allowed which is not with mutual consent, for a limited time, for the
purpose of special devotion, and with the definite intention of reunion.
Nothing can be more foreign to the mind of the Apostle than the Spirit
which filled the monasteries and convents of the mediaeval church.

6, 7. But I speak this by permission, (and) not of commandment. For I

would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper
gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

The reference of the word this in v. 6, is a matter of doubt. Some refer it to

the immediately preceding clause, ‘Your coming together again I speak of
as permitted, not as commanded.’ But that clause is an entirely
subordinate one; and the sense thus given to the passage is not consistent
with the context. It was not a matter permitted, but commanded that
husbands and wives should live together. Others refer it to the whole of v.
5. ‘Your separating yourselves only by consent and for a limited time for
the purpose of devotion, is a matter of permission, not of command; you
may separate for other purposes and for an unlimited time.’ But to this
also it is an obvious objection, that it conflicts with the mandatory
character of vs. 3, 4, and with the meaning of v. 5 itself; for that verse has
not the form of a command. The reference to the 5th verse may be made
under a different aspect. ‘What I have said of your separating by consent
for a season, is a matter of permission, not of command.’ But this is not
consistent with the reason assigned in the next verse. The most natural
reference is to v. 2, and to what follows. His saying, ‘Let every man have
his own wife and every woman her own husband, and let them remember
their mutual obligations,’ was permissive and not a matter of command.
Marriage, in other words, is permitted, not commanded. For I would that
all were as I am. The sense is not materially different, if with many editors
we read qe>lw de> instead of qe>lw ga>r. ‘Marriage is not commanded, but I
would,’ etc. The Apostle did not take sides with the extreme Jewish party,
 134
who regarded marriage as obligatory. He admitted the expediency of all
remaining single in those times of persecution to whom God had given the
requisite grace.

8, 9. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if

they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is
better to marry than to burn.

This is the application of the principle laid down in v. 1 to the

Corinthians. ‘I say to the unmarried and to the widows among you, it is
well not to marry.’ The unmarried is not to be limited to widowers, as is
commonly done on account of the word widows following, because the
word does not admit of that limitation; and because the word married in
the following verse includes all classes. ‘To the unmarried, and specially to
widows, I say so; to the married I say so.’

If these verses and others of like import, are to be understood of men

generally, and not of men in the peculiar circumstances of the early
Christians, then it must be admitted that Paul depreciates marriage, and
that he represents it as scarcely having any higher end than the sexual
intercourse of brutes. This cannot be his meaning; not only because it is
contrary to Scripture, but also because Paul elsewhere, Ephesians 5:22-33,
represents marriage as a most ennobling spiritual union; which raises a man
out of himself and makes him live for another; a union so elevated and
refining as to render it the fit symbol of that bond between Christ and his
people, by which they are exalted to the full perfection of their being.
Marriage, according to Paul, does for man in the sphere of nature, what
union with Christ does for him in the sphere of grace. The truth is that the
apostle writes to the Corinthians as he would do to an army about to enter
on a most unequal conflict in an enemy’s country, and for a protracted
period. He tells them, ‘This is no time for you to think of marriage. You
have a right to marry. And in general it is best that all men should marry.
But in your circumstances marriage can only lead to embarrassment and
increase of suffering.’ This is the only view of the matter by which we can
reconcile the apostle with himself, or with the truth of Scripture and of
fact. This must therefore be borne in mind in the interpretation of this
whole chapter.
 135

10, 11. And unto the married I command, (yet) not I, but the Lord, Let not
the wife depart from (her) husband: But and if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to (her) husband: and let not the husband put
away (his) wife.

The first part of the 11th verse is a parenthesis, the construction goes on
with the last clause. To the married I command, ‘Let not the wife depart
from her husband; and let not the husband put away his wife.’ The
distinction which he here and in v. 12 makes between his commands and
those of the Lord, is not a distinction between what is inspired and what is
not; nor is it a distinction between what Paul taught and what the
Scriptures teach as Calvin understands it; but Lord here evidently refers to
Christ; and the distinction intended is between what Christ had taught
while on earth, and what Paul by his Spirit was inspired to teach. He tells
the Corinthians that so far as the matter of divorce was concerned, they
had no need to apply to him for instruction: Christ had already taught that
the marriage bond could not be dissolved at the option of the parties. The
wife had no right to leave her husband; nor had the husband the right to
repudiate his wife. But although the marriage bond cannot be dissolved by
any human authority, because it is, in virtue of the law of God, a covenant
for life between one man and one woman; yet it can be annulled, not
rightfully indeed, but still effectually. Adultery annuls it, because it is a
breach of the specific contract involved in marriage. And so does, for the
same reason, willful desertion, as the apostle teaches in a following verse.
This is the Protestant doctrine concerning divorce, founded on the nature
of marriage and on the explicit instructions of our Lord, Matthew 5:3;
19:3-9. Mark 10:2-12. Luke 16:18. According to this doctrine nothing but
adultery or willful desertion is a legitimate ground of divorce, first, because
the Scriptures allow of no other grounds; and secondly, because
incompatibility of temper, cruelty, disease, crime, and other things of like
kind, which human laws often make the occasion for divorce, are not in
their nature a destruction of the marriage covenant. Romanists teach that
divorce a vinculo matrimonii, where both parties were baptized, is never
allowable. As this rule is contrary to Scripture, it is found injurious in
practice; and therefore it is evaded by declaring marriages on frivolous
grounds void ab initio; or by granting separation without dissolution of the
 136
marriage tie, for reasons not sanctioned by Scripture. The plain doctrine of
the passage before us, as well as other portions of the word of God, is that
marriage is an indissoluble covenant between one man and one woman for
life, admitting neither of polygamy nor of divorce. If the covenant be
annulled, it can only be by the sinful act of one of the parties.

But and if she depart. The law of Christ is that she should not depart; but
if in violation of the law, or if from necessity she be obliged to depart, she
has but two things to choose between, she must remain unmarried, or she
must be reconciled to her husband. This is not intended as an exception to
the law, but it contemplates a case which may occur in despite of the law.
‘In case a woman has actually departed, with or without just cause, then
she must remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.’ There are
cases undoubtedly which justify a woman in leaving her husband, which
do not justify divorce. Just as there are cases which justify a child leaving,
or being removed from, the custody of a parent. The apostle teaches,
however, that in such cases of separation, the parties must remain
unmarried.

12, 13. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that
believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her
away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he
be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

But to the rest; i.e. to those married persons not contemplated in the
preceding class. The Context makes it clear, that the distinction between
the two classes was, that in the former, both parties were Christians; and
in the latter, one was a Christian, and the other a Jew or heathen. With
regard to these mixed marriages our Lord had given no specific command;
therefore Paul says, I speak, not the Lord. The rule which the apostle lays
down is, that such marriages are lawful, and therefore there is no obligation
on the Christian party to dissolve the connection. And if he is not bound
to do it, he has no right to do it. If, therefore, the unbelieving party consent
(suneudokei~) to remain, the marriage may not be dissolved. The
Christian husband is forbidden to repudiate (ajfie>nai) his heathen wife;
and the Christian wife is forbidden to repudiate her heathen husband. The
same word is used in both cases, because, by the laws both of the Greeks
 137
and of the Romans, the woman as well as the man, had, on legal grounds,
the right of divorce. Having said that these mixed marriages might be
lawfully continued, he proceeds to remove the scruples which the
Christian party might entertain on that point. He shows there is nothing
unholy in such a connection.

14. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children
unclean; but now are they holy.

The proof that such marriages may properly be continued, is, that the
unbelieving party is sanctified by the believing; and the proof that such is
the fact, is, that by common consent their children are holy; which could
not be, unless the marriages whence they sprang were holy; or unless the
principle that intimate communion with the holy renders holy, were a
correct principle.

The assertion of the apostle is, that the unbelieving husband or wife is
sanctified in virtue of the marriage relation with a believer. We have already
seen that the word (aJgia> zein), to sanctify, means,
1. To cleanse.
2. To render morally pure.
3. To consecrate, to regard as sacred, and hence, to reverence or to hallow.
Examples of the use of the word in the third general sense just
mentioned, are to be found in all parts of Scripture. Any person or
thing consecrated to God, or employed in his service, is said to be
sanctified. Thus, particular days appropriated to his service, the
temple, its utensils, the sacrifices, the priests, the whole theocratical
people, are called holy. Persons or things not thus consecrated are
called profane, common, or unclean. To transfer any person or thing
from this latter class to the former, is to sanctify him or it. “What God
hath cleansed (or sanctified), that call not thou common,” Acts 10:15.
Every creature of God is good, and is to be received with thanksgiving,
“For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer,” 1 Timothy 4:5.
This use of the word is specially frequent in application to persons
and communities.
 138
The Hebrew people were sanctified (i.e. consecrated), by being selected
from other nations and devoted to the service of the true God. They were,
therefore, constantly called holy. All who joined them, or who were
intimately connected with them, became in the same sense, holy. Their
children were holy; so were their wives. “If the first-fruits be holy, the
lump is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are also the branches,”
Romans 11:16. That is, if the parents be holy, so are also the children.
Any child, the circumstances of whose birth secured it a place within the
pale of the theocracy, or commonwealth of Israel, was, according to the
constant usage of Scripture, said to be holy. In none of these cases does
the word express any subjective or inward change. A lamb consecrated as a
sacrifice, and therefore holy, did not differ in its nature from any other
lamb. The priests or people, holy in the sense of set apart to the service of
God, were in their inward state the same as other men. Children born
within the theocracy, and therefore holy, were none the less conceived in
sin, and brought forth in iniquity. They were by nature the children of
wrath, even as others, Ephesians 2:3. When, therefore, it is said that the
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving
wife by the believing husband, the meaning is, not that they are rendered
inwardly holy, nor that they are brought under a sanctifying influence, but
that they were sanctified by their intimate union with a believer, just as the
temple sanctified the gold connected with it; or the altar the gift laid upon
it, Matthew 23:17, 19. The sacrifice in itself was merely a part of the body
of a lamb, laid upon the altar, though its internal nature remained the same,
it became something sacred. Thus, the pagan husband, in virtue of his
union with a Christian wife, although he remained a pagan, was sanctified;
he assumed a new relation; he was set apart to the service of God, as the
guardian of one of his chosen ones, and as the parent of children who, in
virtue of their believing mother, were children of the covenant.

That this is so, the apostle proves from the fact, that if the parents are
holy, the children are holy; if the parents are unclean, the children are
unclean. This is saying literally what is expressed figuratively in Romans
11:16. “If the root be holy, so are the branches.” It will be remembered
that the words holy and unclean, do not in this connection express moral
character, but are equivalent to sacred and profane. Those within the
covenant are sacred, those without are profane, i.e. not consecrated to
 139
God. There are two views which may be taken of the apostle’s argument
in this verse. The most natural, and hence the most generally adopted view
is this: ‘The children of these mixed marriages are universally recognized as
holy, that is, as belonging to the church. If this be correct, which no one
disputes, the marriages themselves must be consistent with the laws of
God. The unbelieving must be sanctified by the believing partner.
Otherwise, your children would be unclean, i.e. born out of the pale of the
church.’ To this it is indeed objected by several modern commentators,
that it takes for granted that the Corinthians had no scruples about the
church-standing of the children of these mixed marriages. But this, it is
said, is very improbable so soon after the establishment of the church,
when cases of the kind must have been comparatively few. The principle
in question, however, was not a new one, to be then first determined by
Christian usage. It was, at least, as old as the Jewish economy; and familiar
wherever Jewish laws and the facts of the Jewish history, were known.
Paul circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek, while his mother
was a Jewess, because he knew that his countrymen regarded circumcision
in such cases as obligatory, Acts 16:1-3. The apostle constantly assumes
that his readers were familiar with the principles and facts of the Old
Testament economy. Comp. 10:1-13.

The other view of the argument is this: ‘If, as you admit, the children of
believers be holy, why should not the husband or the wife of a believer be
holy. The conjugal relation is as intimate as the parental. If the one relation
secures this sacredness, so must the other. If the husband be not sanctified
by his believing wife, children are not sanctified by believing parents.’
This, however, supposes a change in the persons addressed. Paul is
speaking to persons involved in these mixed marriages. Your children
naturally means the children of you who have unbelieving husbands or
wives. Whereas this explanation supposes your to refer to Christians
generally. In either way, however, this passage recognizes as universally
conceded the great scriptural principle, that the children of believers are
holy. They are holy in the same sense in which the Jews were holy. They
are included in the church, and have a right to be so regarded. The child of a
Jewish parent had a right to circumcision, and to all the privileges of the
theocracy. So the child of a Christian parent has a right to baptism and to
all the privileges of the church, so long as he is represented by his parent;
 140
that is, until he arrives at the period of life when he is entitled and bound
to act for himself. Then his relation to the church depends upon his own
act. The church is the same in all ages. And it is most instructive to
observe how the writers of the New Testament quietly take for granted
that the great principles which underlie the old dispensation, are still in
force under the new. The children of Jews were treated as Jews; and the
children of Christians, Paul assumes as a thing no one would dispute, are
to be treated as Christians. Some modern German writers find in this
passage a proof that infant baptism was unknown in the apostolic church.
They say that Paul could not attribute the holiness of children to their
parentage, if they were baptized — because their consecration would then
be due to that rite, and not to their descent. This is strange reasoning. The
truth is, that they were baptized not to make them holy, but because they
were holy. The Jewish child was circumcised because he was a Jew, and
not to make him one. The Rabbins say: Peregrina si proselyta fuerit et cum
ea filia ejus — si concepta fuerit et nata in sanctitate, est ut filia Israelita
per omnia. See Wetstein in loc. To be born in holiness (i.e. wimin the
church) was necessary in order to the child being regarded as an Israelite.
So Christian children are not made holy by baptism, but they are baptized
because they are holy.

15. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not
under bondage in such (cases): but God hath called us to peace.

The command in the preceding verse was founded on the assumption, that
the unbelieving party consented to remain in the marriage relation. If the
unbeliever refused thus to remain, the believer was then free. The believer
was not to repudiate the unbelieving husband or wife; but if the unbeliever
broke up the marriage, the Christian partner was thereby liberated from the
contract. This is the interpretation which Protestants have almost
universally given to this verse. It is a passage of great importance, because
it is the foundation of the Protestant doctrine that willful desertion is a
legitimate ground of divorce. And such is certainly the natural sense of the
passage. The question before the apostle was, ‘What is to be done in the
case of these mixed marriages?’ His answer is, ‘Let not the believer put
away the unbeliever, for Christ has forbidden a man to put away his wife
for any cause except that of adultery, Matthew 5:32. But if the unbeliever
 141
breaks up the marriage, the believer is no longer bound.’ There is no
conflict here between Christ’s command and Paul’s instructions. Both say,
a man cannot put away his wife (nor of course a wife her husband) on
account of difference of religion, or for any other reason but the one above
specified. The apostle only adds that if the believing party be, without just
cause, put away, he or she is free.

A brother or sister is not in bondage (ouj dedou>lwtai equivalent to ouj

de>detai V. 39), i.e. is not bound; if the unbeliever consent to remain, the
believer is bound; if the unbeliever will not consent, the believer is not
bound. In the one case the marriage contract binds him; in the other case it
does not bind him. This seems to be the simple meaning of the passage.
Others understand the apostle as saying that the believer is not bound to
continue the marriage — that is, is under no obligation to live with a
partner who is unwilling to live with him. But the one part of the verse
should be allowed to explain the other. An obligation which is said to exist
in one case, Paul denies exists in another. If the unbeliever is willing to
remain, the believer is bound by the marriage contract; but if she be
unwilling, he is not bound.

But God hath called us in peace (ejn eijrh>nh| i.e. w[ste ei+nai ejn eijrh>nh|).
Peace is the state in which the called should live. The gospel was not
designed to break up families or to separate husbands and wives.
Therefore, though the believer is free if deserted by his unbelieving partner,
the separation should be avoided if possible. Let them live together if they
can; and let all proper means be taken to bring the unbelieving party to a
sense of duty, and to induce him to fulfill the marriage covenant. This is
the common view of the meaning of this clause. Others understand it in a
directly opposite sense, viz., as assigning a reason why the separation
should take place, or at least why the attempt to detain an unwilling
husband or wife should not be pressed too far. ‘As God hath called us to
live in peace, it is contrary to the nature of our vocation to keep up these
ill-assorted connections.’ This, however, is contrary to the whole animus
of the apostle. He is evidently laboring throughout these verses to prevent
all unnecessary disruptions of social ties.
 142
16. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save (thy) husband?
or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save (thy) wife?

The meaning of this verse depends on the interpretation given to the

preceding. If Paul there said, ‘Your call to live in peace forbids the
continuance of the marriage relation with an unwilling husband or wife;’
then this verse must give a further reason why (supposing one of the
parties to be unwilling) such marriages should not be continued. That
reason is, the utter uncertainty of any spiritual good flowing from them.
‘Why persist in keeping up the connection, when, O wife, you know not
whether you can save your husband?’ If, however, the common
interpretation of v. 15 be adopted, then the meaning is, ‘Live in peace if
possible, for how knowest thou whether thou shalt not save my husband?’
etc. We have here, therefore, an additional reason for avoiding separation in
the case supposed. Compare 2 Samuel 12:22. Joel 2:14. Jonah 3:9, in the
Septuagint, where the phrase ti>v oi=den eij , who knows if, is used to
express hope. So here the idea is, ‘Who knows, O wife, but that thou shalt
save thy husband?’

17. But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every
one, 8 so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

Paul was not only averse to breaking up the conjugal relation, but it was a
general ordinance of his that men should remain in the same social position
after becoming Christians, which they had occupied before. We can very
imperfectly appreciate the effect produced by the first promulgation of the
gospel. The signs and wonders, and diverse miracles and gifts of the Holy
Ghost by which it was attended; the perfect equality of men which it
announced; the glorious promises which it contained; the insignificancy
and ephemeral character which it ascribed to every thing earthly; and the
certainty of the second coming of Christ which it predicted, produced a
ferment in the minds of men such as was never experienced either before or
since. It is not surprising, therefore, that men were in many instances
disposed to break loose from their social ties; wives to forsake their
unbelieving husbands, or husbands their wives; slaves to renounce the
authority of their masters, or subjects the dominion of their sovereigns.
This was an evil which called for repression. Paul endeavored to convince
 143
his readers that their relation to Christ was compatible with any social
relation or position. It mattered not whether they were circumcised or
uncircumcised, bond or free, married to a Christian or married to a Gentile,
their fellowship with Christ remained the same. Their conversion to
Christianity involved, therefore, no necessity of breaking asunder their
social ties. The gospel was not a revolutionary, disorganizing element; but
one which was designed to eliminate what is evil, and to exalt and purify
what is in itself indifferent.

As God (or the Lord) hath distributed to every man, i.e. whatever lot in life
God has assigned any man. As the Lord (or God) hath called every man,
i.e. whatever condition or station a man occupied when called by the word
and Spirit of God, let him remain in it. His conversion, at least, does not
render any change necessary. The principal difficulty with regard to this
verse does not appear in our version. The words (eij mh<), rendered but at
the beginning of the verse, mean except or unless, and this meaning they
have so uniformly that many commentators insist that they must be so
rendered here. Some of them say the meaning is, ‘What do you know
except this, that every man should remain in the condition in which he was
called?’ But in this way the verse does not cohere with the preceding one.
‘How knowest thou O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? except let
every man remain as he was called.’ This every one feels to be intolerably
harsh. It would be better with others, to supply something at the beginning
of the verse. ‘What is to be done except.’ ‘Do not favor the separation of
husbands and wives on account of differences in religion. God has called us
to peace. The wife may save her husband, and the husband his wife. What
then is to be done, except to remain in the condition in which you were
called.’ Others get over the difficulty by separating the eij and mh< and
connecting the latter with a verb understood. ‘How knowest thou, O man,
but that thou shalt save thy wife? If not, i.e. if thou shalt not save her, still
the principle holds good that every man should remain in the state in
which he was called.’ This gives a good sense, but it would require eij de<
mh>. As it is undeniable that the Greek of the New Testament especially in
the use of the particles, is in a measure conformed to the usage of the
Hebrew, a freer use of these particles is allowable, when the context
requires it, than is common in classic writers. Most commentators
therefore render the words in question as our translators have done. And so
 144
I ordain in all the churches. That is, this is the rule or order which I lay
down in all churches. The apostles, in virtue of their plenary inspiration,
were authorized not only to teach the doctrines of the gospel, but also to
regulate all matters relating to practice.

18. Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become
uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

This is the first application of the principle just laid down. Let every man
remain as he is, circumcised or uncircumcised. The Jews were wont, when
they abandoned their religion, to endeavor to obliterate the mark of
circumcision. The Judaizas were disposed to insist on the circumcision of
the Gentile converts. Both were wrong. Paul’s command is that they
should remain as they were. Instead of the interrogative form adopted in
our version, the preferable translation is, “One was called (ejklh>qh) being
circumcised; let him not become uncircumcised. Another was called in
uncircumcision; let him not be circumcised.” To call, throughout the
doctrinal portions of the New Testament, is to convert, to call effectually.

19. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping

of the commandments of God.

This is the reason why they should be treated with indifference. They are
nothing; they have no influence either favorable or unfavorable on our
relation to God. No man is either the better or worse for being either
circumcised or uncircumcised. The gospel has raised men above all such
things. The question to be asked is not whether a man is circumcised or
uncircumcised; but whether he keeps the commandments of God. The
things, therefore, about which the Christian ought to be solicitous, are not
such external matters, which have no influence on his spiritual state, but
conformity in heart and life to the revealed will of God. Romans 2:25, 29.
Galatians 5:6. “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing (is
of any worth), nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by
love.”’Faith that worketh by love,’ and ‘keeping the commandments of
God,’ are the same thing. They express the idea of holiness of heart and
life under different aspects.
 145
20. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

This is a repetition of the sentiment contained in v. 17, which is again

repeated in v. 24. The word calling (klh~siv), always in the New
Testament means the call of God, that efficacious operation of his Spirit
by which men are brought into the kingdom of Christ. It is hard, however,
to make it bear that sense here. The meaning is plain enough. ‘As he was
called, so let him remain.’ But this is the idea detached from the form in
which it is here expressed. The great majority of commentators agree in
giving the word in this place the sense of vocation, as we use that word
when we speak of the vocation of a mechanic or of a farmer. In whatever
station or condition a man is called, therein let him remain. This of course
is not intended to prohibit a man’s endeavoring to better his condition. If
he be a laborer when converted, he is not required always to remain a
laborer. The meaning of the apostle evidently is, that no man should desire
to change his status in life simply because he had become a Christian; as
though he could not be a Christian and yet remain as he was. The gospel is
just as well suited to men in one vocation as in another, and its blessings
can be enjoyed in all their fullness equally in any condition of life. This is
illustrated by an extreme case in the following verse.

21. Art thou called (being) a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be
made free, use (it) rather.

Here again the general sense is plain. A man’s being a slave, so far as his
being a Christian is concerned, is a matter of no account. It need give him
no concern. The interpretation of the latter part of the verse is somewhat
doubtful. According to most of the Fathers the meaning is, ‘Care not for
being a slave; but even if you can be free, prefer to remain as you are.’ This
interpretation is adopted by several of the modern German commentators.
It is urged in its favor that the original demands it. Paul does not Say but if
(ajllj eij ), but, but if even (ajllj eij kai>). ‘Care not for your slavery; but if
even you can be free, use it rather;’ or, ‘although (eij kai>) thou canst be
free, etc.’ The English version overlooks the kai>. Besides, it is said the
common interpretation is in conflict with the context. The very thing the
apostle has in view is to urge his readers to remain in the condition in
which they were called. ‘Art thou called being circumcised, remain
 146
circumcised; art thou called being free, remain free; art thou called being a
slave, remain a slave.’ There is not much force in this argument; because, as
before remarked, Paul’s object is not to exhort men not to improve their
condition, but simply not to allow their social relations to disturb them; or
imagine that their becoming Christians rendered it necessary to change
those relations. He could, with perfect consistency with the context, say
to the slave, ‘Let not your being a slave give you any concern; but if you
can become free, choose freedom rather than slavery.’ A third argument
urged in favor of the interpretation above mentioned, is that it is more
consistent with the spirit of the apostle, with his exalted views of the
equality of all men in Christ, and with his expectation that all earthly
distinctions would soon be swept away. The advice to slaves to avail
themselves of the opportunity to become free, it is said, would be trivial in
the estimation of one who believed that those slaves might, at any
moment, be exalted to be kings and priests to God. It must be admitted
that this interpretation is plausible. It is not, however, demanded either by
the language used, or by the context. The conjunction (kai>), overlooked in
our version, may be rendered also. ‘Wast thou called being a slave? care
not for it; but if also (i.e. in addition to your being called) thou canst
become free, use it rather.’ Luther, Calvin, Beza, and the great body of
commentators from their day to this, understand the apostle to say that
liberty was to be chosen if the opportunity to become free were offered.
That the context does not conflict with this view of the passage, which our
translators evidently adopted, has already been shown.

22. For he that is called in the Lord, (being) a servant, is the Lord’s
freeman: likewise also he that is called, (being) free, is Christ’s servant.

The connection is with the first, not with the last clause of v. 21. ‘Care not
for your bondage, for,’ etc. He that is called in the Lord; or, as the words
stand, ‘The slave called in the Lord.’ That is, the converted slave. Is the
Lord’s freeman, i.e. is one whom the Lord has redeemed. The possession
of that liberty with which Christ makes his people free, is so great a
blessing, that all other things, even the condition of slavery, are
comparatively of no account. Paul, in Romans 8:18-23, says that the
afflictions of this life are not worthy to be compared with the glorious
liberty of the sons of God, towards which the whole creation, now subject
 147
to vanity, looks with longing expectation. A man need care little about his
external condition in this world, who is freed from the bondage of Satan,
the curse of the law, the dominion of sin, and who is made a child and heir
of God; that is, who is conformed to the image of his Son, and made a
partaker of his exaltation and kingdom. Likewise also he that is called,
being free, is the Lord’s servant (i.e. slave, dou~lov). The distinction
between master and slave is obliterated. To be the Lord’s freeman, and to
be the Lord’s slave, are the same thing. The Lord’s freeman is one whom
the Lord has redeemed from Satan, and made his own; and the Lord’s slave
is also one whom Christ has purchased for himself. So that master and
slave stand on the same level before Christ. Comp. Ephesians 6:9.

23. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

Ye (i.e. all Christians, bond and free,) were bought with a price. That is,
purchased by Christ with his most precious blood, 1 Peter 1:18, 19. Ye
belong to him; ye are his slaves, and should therefore act accordingly; and
not be the slaves of men. The slave of one master cannot be the slave of
another. One who is redeemed by Christ, who feels that he belongs to him,
that his will is the supreme rule of action, and who performs all his duties,
not as a man-pleaser, but as doing service as to the Lord, and not to men,
Ephesians 6:6, 7, is inwardly free, whatever his external relations may be.
This verse is a proper sequel to the preceding one. The apostle had
exhorted all believers, even slaves, to be contented with their external
condition. As a motive to such contentment, he had said they were all
equally the subjects of redemption. They all belonged to Christ. To him
their allegiance was due. They, therefore, whether bond or free, should act
in obedience to him, and not in obedience to men. There is a very
important sense in which even slaves are forbidden to be the servants of
men — that is, they are not to be men-pleasers, but in all things should act
from a sense of duty to God.

24. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

That is, as all these external relations are of no account, and especially, as a
man may be a slave and yet a freeman, let every man be contented with the
station which God has assigned him in this life. With God (para< qew~)| ;
 148
near him, perpetually mindful of his presence and favor. In other words, in
communion with God. This would secure their contentment and
happiness. They would find his favor to be life, and his loving-kindness to
be better than life. To live near to God is, therefore, the apostle’s
prescription both for peace and holiness.

OF VIRGINS AND WIDOWS. VS. 25-40.

In this portion of the chapter the apostle treats principally of the marriage
of virgins — including, however, the young of both sexes. On this subject
he says he was not authorized to speak with authority, but simply to
advise, v. 25. His advice was, on account of the impending troubles, that
they should not marry, vs. 26, 27. It was not wrong to marry, but it would
expose them to greater suffering, v. 28. Besides, they should consider the
transitory nature of all earthly ties. The fashion of the world was passing
away, vs. 29-31. Still further, a single life was freer from worldly cares.
The unmarried could consecrate themselves without distraction to the
service of the Lord, vs. 32-35. To parents he says, that, if circumstances
render it desirable, they might without hesitation give their daughters in
marriage, v. 36. But if they were free to act on their own judgment, his
advice was to keep them unmarried, vs. 37, 38. Marriage can only be
dissolved by death. After the death of her husband, a woman is at liberty
to marry again; but she should intermarry only with a Christian; and in
Paul’s judgment, her happiness would be promoted by remaining single,
vs. 39, 40.

25. Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give
my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

Now (de> , but,) serves to resume the connection broken off by the
preceding digression. ‘But to resume my subject,’ which in this chapter is
marriage. Concerning virgins, (parqe>noi.) The word properly means
maidens, though as an adjective it is used of both sexes, Revalation 14:4. I
have no commandment of the Lord. That is, neither Christ himself, nor the
Spirit of Christ, by whom Paul was guided, had commissioned him to do
any thing more than to counsel these persons. He was inspired, or led by
the Spirit, in this matter, not to command, but to advise. His advice,
 149
however, was worthy of great deference. It was not merely the counsel of
a wise and experienced man; but of one who had obtained mercy of the
Lord to be faithful, i.e. worthy of confidence, one who could be trusted.
This is a sense the word; (pisto>v) often has, as in the expressions,
“faithful saying,” “faithful witness.” Paul felt himself indebted to the
mercy of Christ for those inward graces and qualities which entitled him to
the confidence of his readers. He recognized Christ as the giver of those
gifts, and himself as undeserving of them. Had he been left to himself,
instead of being the wise, disinterested, and faithful counselor of
Christians, he would have been a blaspheming persecutor. Philosophy
would teach us that moral excellence must be self-acquired. The Bible
teaches us that it is the gift of God; and being the gift of Christ, Christ
must be God. As such, Paul blessed him for having been so merciful to him
as to convert him, and bring him to the knowledge and obedience of the
truth.

26. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, (I say,)
that (it is) good for a man so to be.

I suppose therefore, (nomi>zw ou+n,) i.e. I think then, The being so, i.e. as
you are, unmarried, is good, in the sense of expedient. There is a slight
grammatical inaccuracy, or change of construction, in this verse. ‘I think
then this to be expedient on account of the coming necessity; that is, I
think that it is expedient for a man so to be.’ Paul here expressly states the
ground of his opinion that it was inexpedient for his readers to marry. It
was on account of the present distress, (ejnestw~san ajna>gkhn,) the
distress standing near, whether actually present, or impending, depends on
the context, Luke 21:23; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 10:12; 1 Thessalonians 3:7. In
the present case it was probably not so much the troubles in which
Christians were then actually involved, as those which the apostle saw to
be hanging over them, which he refers to. The Scriptures clearly predicted
that the coming of Christ was to be preceded and attended by great
commotions and calamities. These predictions had reference both to his
first and second advent. The insight even of inspired men into the future
was very imperfect. The ancient prophets searched diligently into the
meaning of their own predictions, 1 Peter 1:10-12, and the apostles knew
little of the times and seasons, Acts 1:7. They knew that great calamities
 150
were to come on the earth, but how or when it was not given to them
clearly to see. The awful desolation which was soon to fall upon Jerusalem
and on the whole Jewish race, and which could not but involve more or
less the Christians also, and the inevitable struggles and persecution which,
according to our Lord’s predictions, his followers were to encounter, were
surely enough to create a deep impression on the apostle’s mind, and to
make him solicitous to prepare his brethren for the coming storm. It is not
necessary, therefore, to assume, as is so often done, that the apostle
anticipated the second advent of Christ during that generation, and that he
refers to the calamities which were to precede that event. Such expectation
would not, indeed, be incompatible with his inspiration. It was revealed to
him that Christ was to come the second time; and that he was to come as a
thief in the night. He might, therefore, naturally look for it at any time. We
know, however, that in the case of Paul at least, it was revealed, that the
second advent was not to occur before the national conversion of the Jews,
Romans 11:25; or before the great apostasy and rise of the man of sin, 2
Thessalonians 2:2, 3. Still, he knew not when those events might occur,
and therefore he knew not when Christ would come. It was not, however,
to the calamities which are to precede the second advent, to which Paul
here refers, but rather to those which it was predicted should attend the
introduction of the gospel.

27. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed Art thou loosed from
a wife? seek not a wife.

Marriage, in the present circumstances of the church, will prove a burden.

Although this fact will not justify the dissolution of any marriage, it
should dissuade Christians from getting married.

28. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she
hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I
spare you.

If thou marry, or, ‘If thou shalt have married, thou didst not sin; and if a
virgin shall have married, she did not sin.’ Marriage is inexpedient, not
sinful. It is not because there is any thing wrong in getting married that
Paul dissuades from it, but because such shall have trouble (qli~yiv,
 151
suffering) in the flesh; that is, external, as opposed to inward or spiritual
afflictions. The reference is to the afflictions which must attend marriage in
times of trouble. The word flesh is often used in this sense for what is
external. John 6:63; Ephesians 6:5; 2 Corinthians 11:18. But I spare you.
The design of my dissuading you from marriage is to spare you these
sufferings.

29-31. But this I say, brethren, the time (is) short; it remaineth, that both
they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as
though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and
they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as
not abusing (it): for the fashion of this world passeth away.

‘This is another reason why you should not marry. You will soon have to
leave your wives. It is nothing relating to your permanent and eternal
interests which I urged you to forego, but only something which pertains
to the fleeting relations of this changing world.’

But this I say, i.e. This I would have you bear in mind, as giving force to
my advice. The time, i.e. the appointed time (kairo>v, not cro>nov) is short
(sunestalme>nov). The verb properly means to roll or wind up, Acts 5:6,
then to contract or shorten. ‘The time is shortened.’ Comp. Matthew
24:22. Mark 13:20, where the idea is the same, though the word used is
different. This interpretation is on the whole preferable to another almost
equally common. ‘The time is calamitous;’ for this use of the word,
however, no certain authority can be given. The words rendered, it
remaineth, properly belong to the preceding clause. The meaning is not, ‘It
remaimeth that,’ but ‘The time henceforth (to< loipo>n) is short.’ That is,
the allotted time is brief. That does not depend on This I say, as though the
sense were ‘I say that;’ but on what immediately precedes. ‘The time is
shortened in order that, etc.’ It is the design of God in allowing us but a
brief period in this world, or in this state, that we should set lightly by all
earthly things; that those who have wives should be as though they had
them not, and those that weep, as though they wept not; those who
rejoices as though they rejoiced not; those who buy, as though they
possessed not; those using the world, as though they used it not.’ We
should set our affections on things above, and not on the things on the
 152
earth. Colossians 3:2. The clause rendered ‘they that use this world as not
abusing it,’ is properly so translated, as katacra>omai means to use
overmuch. The only reason for preferring the other translation is the
analogy of the other passages. Either version is consistent with the usage
of the word. For the fashion of this world passeth away, i.e. is in the act of
passing away. The fashion (sch~ma) the external form, the essence as it
appears, the present state of things. The figure is derived from the scenes
of a theatre, in the actual process of change. The fact that the present
condition of the world is not to last long, and that our participation in its
joys and sorrows is to be so shortlived, is the reason which the apostle
urges why we should not be wedded to earthly things.

32 33. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried

careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he
may please (his) wife.

This is the third reason why Paul wished the early Christians to remain
unmarried. The first was, the increased suffering marriage would probably
bring with it. The second was, the transitory nature of all earthly things.
And the third is, the comparative freedom from care connected with a
single life. The unmarried man may devote himself to the things of the
Lord, i.e. to the service of Christ. Having no family to provide for and to
protect in times of distress and persecution, he is less encumbered with
worldly cares. Christ, and not his wife is, or may be, the great object of his
solicitude.

34. There is difference (also) between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried
woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body
and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how
she may please (her) husband.

What is true of men is true also of women. There is a difference between a

wife and a virgin. The difference is, that the virgin may devote her whole
time to the Lord; the wife must be involved in worldly cares for the sake of
her husband. The Greek literally rendered is, Divided is a wife and a
virgin. Their interests are diverse. The one has a husband to divide her
 153
attention; the other is free from such distraction. The reading adopted by
Lachmann and Ruckert modifies the sense of this passage, and relieves
some of its difficulties. They connect meme>ristai with the preceding
sentence, ‘He that is married careth for the things of the world, how he
may please his wife, and is divided, i.e. distracted between the service of
the Lord and his social duties.’ In the following clause they read hJ gunh< hJ
a]gamov kai< hJ parqe>nov hJ a]gamov, the unmarried woman and the virgin
care for the things of the Lord.’ Jerome pronounces in favor of this reading,
which he says he found in his Greek MSS., and it is also adopted by
Calvin. The common text, however, is generally preferred. The virgin cares
for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.
That is, that she be consecrated as to body and Spirit. The word holy has
the sense here that it has in v. 14, and so often elsewhere. It is not in
purity and spirituality that the virgin is said to have the advantage of the
wife; but in freedom from distracting cares. In v. 14, even the unbelieving
husband or wife is said to be sanctified or made holy. And it is in the same
general sense of consecration, that holiness is here predicated of virgins as
distinguished from wives. It would be to impugn a divine ordinance, and to
contradict all experience, to say that married women, because married, are
less holy than the unmarried. Paul advances no such idea.

35. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon
you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord
without distraction.

The object of the apostle was their advantage. In urging them to remain
single, he had no intention “to cast a snare upon them,” i.e. to restrain their
liberty. Or the meaning of the figure is, ‘I do not wish to raise scruples, to
make you afraid to move lest you fall into a snare.’ The former
explanation, however, is preferable. An animal ensnared was confined; it
had no liberty of action. Paul did not wish to bring his readers into that
state. They were perfectly free to do as they pleased. There was no moral
obligation upon them to remain single; no superior holiness in celibacy. He
was only saying what in his judgment would be most to their advantage
under existing circumstances. That is, as he expresses it, his design was to
promote what was becoming and proper in them; that is, to promote
assiduous, undistracted devotion to the Lord. In other words, that they
 154
might be free from any thing to divert their minds from the service of the
Lord. The literal translation is, ‘For devotion to the Lord without
distraction.’ Every where the apostle is careful to show that celibacy was
preferred merely on the grounds of expediency, and not on the ground of
its being a higher state of virtue. All assumption or imposition of vows of
celibacy, is a restriction of the liberty which the apostle was solicitous not
to invade. Such vows are a snare; and those who take them are like an
animal in a net.

36. But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his
virgin, if she pass the flower of (her) age, and need so require, let him do
what he will he sinneth not: let them marry.

This and the following verse are addressed to fathers, for with them,
according to the usage both of Jews and Greeks, rested the disposal of the
daughters of the family. Though the apostle regarded marriage at that time
as inexpedient, he tells fathers that they were perfectly free to exercise
their own judgment in giving their daughters in marriage, or keeping them
single. If any man (i.e. any father) thinketh he behaveth himself uncomely
torwards his virgin. The word (ajschmone>w) may be taken either actively
or passively. The meaning may therefore be, ‘If any father think he
exposes himself to disgrace by keeping his daughter unmarried;’ as it was
considered a reproach to be unmarried. Or, ‘If he think that he exposes her
to disgrace.’ The latter interpretation is to be preferred because agreeable
to the common use of the word, and because it is required by the
preposition (ejpi> ), which indicates the object of the action of the verb. If
she pass the flower of her age. This is one of the conditions of the case on
which Paul gives his advice. The daughter must be of full age; and
secondly, there must be some reason why in her case marriage is
necessary: if need so require. The daughter’s happiness may be involved.
Under these circumstances the father may do what he will; he does not sin
in giving his daughter in marriage, and, therefore, let them i.e. the parties)
marry. In all cases of indifference, where no moral principle is concerned,
our conduct must be regulated by a wise consideration of circumstances.
But where a thing is in its own nature either right or wrong, there is no
room for discretion.
 155
37. Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no
necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his
heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

He that standeth steadfast in his heart, i.e. whose judgment is settled and
firm, being fully persuaded of the inexpediency of his daughter’s marrying.
Having no necessity, i.e. being controlled by no external necessity; nothing,
in other words, rendering it necessary for him to act contrary to his own
judgment. But hath power over his own will, i.e. is able to act as he pleases,
or according to his judgment. And hath so decreed in his heart, i.e. has fully
made up his mind, to keep his virgin, i.e. to keep his daughter unmarried;
he doeth well.

38. So then he that giveth (her) in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth
(her) not in marriage doeth better.

As there is no sin in marriage, and no superior virtue in celibacy, it is a

there question of expediency, to be determined by the circumstances of
each particular case. All Paul says is that, other things being equal, it is
better (i.e. wiser) not to marry than to marry; on account, as he before said,
of impending calamities.

39. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her
husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in
the Lord.

The uniform doctrine of the New Testament is, that marriage is a contract
for life, between one man and one woman, indissoluble by the will of the
parties or by any human authority; but that the death of either party
leaves the survivor free to contract another marriage. See Romans 7:1-3.
Such being the doctrine of the Bible, no civil or ecclesiastical body can
rightfully establish a different rule, or prescribe another or (as they
pretend) a higher rule of morality. All attempts to be better than the Bible,
on this or any other subject, only render men worse. Paul, therefore,
teaches that a woman on the death of her husband, is free to marry whom
she will — only in the Lord. There are two ways in which this restriction
may be understood. First, that she should marry only one who is in the
 156
Lord, i.e. a Christian. Though mixed marriages between Christians and
Jews or Gentiles should not, when formed, be broken up (as taught above,
vs. 12-15); yet no such marriage ought to be contracted. Or, secondly, the
phrase may be taken adverbially as expressing manner, as becomes those
who are in the Lord, i.e. in a Christian manner. She is to marry as becomes
a Christian. This interpretation includes the other. Compare Romans 16:2,
22. Ephesians 6:1, etc. The former explanation is the more simple and
natural.

40. But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also
that I have the Spirit of God.

Happier, freer from exposure to suffering, v. 28; and freer from worldly
care, v. 32. After my judgment; it was an opinion founded, as he says, on
the peculiar circumstances of the time, and not intended to bind the
conscience or to interfere with the liberty of others, v. 35. Nevertheless, it
was the opinion of a holy and inspired man, and therefore entitled to the
greatest deference. To have the Spirit, means to be under the influence of
the Spirit; whether as a Christian or as an apostle, depends on the context.
The meaning here clearly is, that the apostle was led by the Spirit to give
the advice in question, so that his advice is, so to speak, the advice of the
Spirit. But is not the advice of the Spirit obligatory? Certainly, if he meant
it to be so; but if he meant simply to lay down a general rule of
expediency, and to leave every one to judge of its application to his or her
peculiar case, then it leaves all concerned free. It would cease to be advice
if men could not act contrary to it, without irreverence or disobedience. I
think, (dokw~) I have, is only, agreeably to Greek usage, an urbane way of
saying I have, comp. Galatians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 12:22. Paul was in no
doubt of his being an organ of the Holy Ghost. I also, i.e. I as well as
others. This is generally considered as referring (somewhat ironically) to
the false pretenders in Corinth. ‘I think I have the Spirit of God as well as
those among you who make such high pretensions.’
 157

CHAPTER VIII.
Eating of sacrifices offered to idols is not in itself wrong, vs. 1-7.
But it should be avoided if it gave offense, vs. 8-13.

ON EATING OF SACRIFICES, VS. 1-13.

The second subject on which the Corinthians had requested the advice of
the apostle was the lawfulness of eating of the sacrifices offered to idols.
To the discussion of that question in its different aspects the eighth, ninth
and tenth chapters of this epistle are principally devoted. At the council of
Jerusalem it was decided by the apostles, elders and brethren, that the
Gentile converts should abstain “from meat offered to idols, from blood,
and from things strangled, and from fornication,” Acts 15:29; and this
decree was referred to the Holy Ghost as its author, v. 28. Yet Paul,
though present in that council, not only does not refer to it, but goes
directly against it. That decree forbade the eating of meat offered to idols;
Paul, in ch. 10, tells the Corinthians that when exposed for sale in the
market, or found on private tables, they might eat it without scruple.
These facts do not prove any discrepancy between the apostles gathered
in Jerusalem and Paul; nor that the decisions of that council were not
obligatory on the church. They only serve to explain the true intent and
meaning of those decisions. They show,
1. That there was no permanent moral ground for the prohibition of meat
offered to idols.
2. That the ground of the prohibition being expediency, it was of
necessity temporary and limited. It had reference to Christians in the
midst of those to whom eating such meat was an abomination. It,
therefore, ceased to be binding whenever and wherever the grounds of
the prohibition did not exist. It is analogous to Paul’s condemnation of
women appearing in church without a veil. The decisions of that
council, therefore, were no barrier to Paul’s discussing the question on
its merits.
 158
In this chapter the subject is viewed in two aspects; first, considered in
itself; and secondly, in its bearing on the weaker or less enlightened class of
Christians. Most of the questions which disturbed the early church had
their origin in the conflicting prepossessions and prejudices of the Jewish
and Gentile converts; or at least, of the more and less enlightened of the
Christian converts. For it is probable that many of those who had been
educated as heathen belonged to the class of weaker brethren. As a body,
however, the Gentiles were disposed to latitudinarianism; and the Jews to
superstitious scrupulousness. So far as general principles were concerned,
Paul sided with the Gentile party. Their views about meats and drinks, and
holy days, and ceremonies were derived from the apostle himself, and were
therefore approved by him. But the spirit and practice of this party he
severely condemns. Thus, in the present instance, he admits that an idol is
nothing; that a sacrifice is nothing; that all enlightened Christians know
this; that, consequently, eating of the heathen sacrifices was a matter of
indifference, it made a man neither better nor worse; and yet eating of them
might be, and in their case it was, sinful; because injurious to their weaker
brethren. He begins the chapter with the admission, therefore, that all
enlightened Christians have knowledge. He reminds them, however, that
there is something higher than knowledge; that knowledge without love is,
after all, only another form of ignorance. The main thing to be known is
not apprehended, vs. 1-3. He admits, however, that Christians know that
the gods of the heathen are vanities and lies, that there is but one only, the
living and true God, v. 4. For although the heathen acknowledge a whole
hierarchy of deities, celestial and terrestrial, Christians acknowledge but
one God and one Mediator, v. 6. All this is admitted. It is, however,
nevertheless true that many Christians, though they know that there is but
one God, yet are not persuaded that the heathen deities are nothing, and
therefore they stand in awe of them, and could not help believing that
eating of sacrifices offered to idols was an act of worship, or in some way
defiling, v. 7. The apostle also admits the second principle relied upon by
the Gentile converts, viz., that meat does not commend us to God, that it
can have no influence on our spiritual state, v. 8. It is not enough, however,
that an act should be in its own nature indifferent to justify us in
performing it. If our doing what is in itself innocent be the occasion of
leading others into sin, it is for that reason sinful for us, v. 9. If, therefore,
a weak brother should be led, against the convictions of his own mind, to
 159
join his stronger brethren in eating such sacrifices, he would bring himself
into condemnation. It was, therefore, a breach of charity and a sin against
Christ, to eat of the heathen sacrifices under circumstances which
emboldened others to sin, vs. 10-12. The apostle avows his own
determination never to eat meat at all, if by so doing he should cause his
brethren to sin, v. 13.

1. Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have
knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

The idolatry of the Greeks and Romans pervaded their whole life. Their
social intercourse, their feasts, the administration of justice, the public
amusements, the offices and honors of the government, were all more or
less connected with religious services. Christians, therefore, were
constantly exposed to the danger of being involved in some idolatrous
homage without even knowing it. This gave rise to numerous and
perplexing questions of conscience, which were often decided differently
by different classes of Christians. One of the most perplexing of these
questions related to the use of things offered to idols. Some had no
scruples on this point; others thought it sinful to eat of such sacrifices
under any circumstances. This was a question which it was necessary to
have authoritatively settled, because it came up every day for decision.
The victims offered in sacrifices were usually divided into three parts. One
was consumed on the altar, another was given to the priest, and a third was
retained by the offerer. The portion given to the priest, if not needed for
himself, was sent to the market. The portion retained by the offerer was
either eaten at his own table, or within the precincts of the temple. The
Christians, therefore, if they bought meat in the market, or if invited to the
houses of their heathen friends, or to the festivals in the temples, were
liable to have these sacrifices placed before them. The two grounds on
which the more liberal of them defended the use of such meat, were, first,
that the idols were nothing, they were not really gods; and secondly, that
meat cannot commend us to God. Both these principles are true, and
therefore the apostle concedes them, but at the same time corrects the
practical inferences which the Gentile converts drew from them. There
were really two distinct questions relating to this subject. The first was,
whether eating such sacrifices was lawful? the other, whether it was lawful
 160
to eat them within the precincts of the temple? The apostle does not
distinguish these questions until the tenth chapter. Here he speaks of the
subject only in its general aspects.

Now as touching things offered unto idols. Literally, But, concerning

idol-sacrifices. The particle (de> ,) but, serves to introduce a new topic. As
the fourth verse begins, concerning therefore the eating things offered to
idols, the intervening words are a logical parenthesis. This parenthesis may
begin immediately after the word idols, or after the word knowledge, so
that the first two clauses of the verse are connected. “But concerning
idol-sacrifices, we know we all have knowledge.” This claim to knowledge,
though a claim of the Corinthians, and the ground on which they defended
the eating of those sacrifices, is not put forward as a point to be contested.
The apostle adopts it, or makes it his own, and then proceeds to qualify
and limit it, precisely as he did with the aphorism, “All things are lawful,”
in 6:12; see also 10:23. The subject of the two verbs know and have in this
verse are not necessarily the same. The sense may be: ‘I know we all have
knowledge.’ The knowledge intended is determined by the context. It is the
knowledge concerning idols. In this verse Paul says, “We all have
knowledge;” but in v. 7, he says, “This knowledge is not in all.” This
apparent contradiction may be explained by supposing, what is perfectly
natural, that the apostle has reference to different classes of persons in the
two passages. In v. 1 he may intend himself and his followers. We all, that
is, all the stronger or more enlightened class of believers. Whereas, in v. 7,
he may refer to Christians generally, including the strong and weak. ‘This
knowledge is not in all, for the weak have it not.’ Or the distinction may be
between theoretical and practical knowledge. All Christians admit, as a
matter of theory, that an idol is nothing, but this knowledge is not in all
believers practical and controlling. This also is natural and satisfactory. It
is analogous to the statements of this same apostle in reference to the
heathen. In Romans 1:23, he says, ‘They know God,’ but in 1 Corinthians
1:21, he says, they ‘know not God.’ These statements are perfectly
consistent, because the word know has different senses. There is a sense in
which all men know God; they all, from the constitution of their nature,
and from the works of God, know that there is a being on whom they are
dependent, and to whom they are responsible. But this is not the
knowledge of God which is said to be “eternal life.” It is therefore
 161
perfectly consistent to attribute the former knowledge to the heathen,
though he denies to them the latter. So here it is consistent to say that all
Christians have a theoretical knowledge of the truth that there is but one
God, and that idols are nothing, and yet say that this knowledge is not
practical and controlling in all. It is one of the great beauties of the
Scriptures, that the sacred writers in the calm consciousness of truth, in
the use of popular, as distinguished from philosophical language, affirm
and deny the same verbal proposition, assured that the consistency and
intent of their statements will make their way to the heart and conscience.
That the apostle is here speaking of theoretical, as distinguished from true,
practical knowledge, is plain from what he says of it. It puffeth up. The
Greek word here used (fusio>w,) is, in the New Testament, employed in
the sense of the word (fusa>w,) which means to blow, to fill with wind, to
inflate, and then, to render vain and conceited. Mere theoretical or
speculative knowledge, that is, knowledge divorced from love, tends to
inflate the mind, i.e. renders it vain and conceited. It is a great mistake,
therefore, to suppose that there knowledge, without religion, elevates and
refines men, or can purify society. It is essential, but it is insufficient.

Charity edifieth. Charity is an inadequate and unhappy translation of the

Greek word (ajga>ph), because, agreeably to its Latin derivation, it properly
means the feeling which arises from the perception of the wants and
sufferings of others, and the consequent desire to relieve them. Love
(ajga>ph, a word peculiar to Hellenistic Greek,) is much more
comprehensive than this, not only because it may have God for its object,
but also because, when exercised towards men it includes complacency and
delight as well as benevolence. It is of this comprehensive virtue the
apostle treats at length in the thirteenth chapter of this epistle, and of
which he here says, it edifies. It does not terminate on itself, as knowledge
does, but goes out of itself, and seeks it happiness in another, and lives and
acts for others. It is, therefore, something incomparably higher than
knowledge, when the two are separated and distinguished.

2. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet
as he ought to know.
 162
The knowledge which puffs up is not true knowledge. One is constantly
astonished at the profound remarks which every where occur in the sacred
writings; remarks which do not directly refer to the mysteries of the
gospel, but philosophical remarks; that is, such as reveal the deepest
insight into the nature of man and the workings of his constitution.
Philosophy and theology are inseparably connected. The former is an
element of the latter. A system of philosophy might be constructed by
collecting and classifying the aphorisms of the Bible. And the reason why
the philosophy which underlies Augustinianism has stood as a rock in the
ocean, while other systems rise and fall like waves around it, is, that it is
derived from the word of God, and not from the speculations of men. The
relation between the cognitive and emotional faculties is one of the most
difficult problems in philosophy. In many systems they are regarded as
distinct. Paul here teaches, that with regard to a large class of objects,
knowledge without feeling is nothing; it supposes the most essential
characteristics of the object to be unperceived. And in the following verse
he teaches that love is the highest form of knowledge. To know God is to
love him; and to love him is to know him. Love is intelligent, and
knowledge is emotional. Hence the apostle says, If a man thinketh that he
knoweth any thing; that is, if he is proud or conceited, he is ignorant. He
does not apprehend the true nature of the objects which he pretends to
know. He does not see their vastness, their complexity, their majesty and
excellence. These are the attributes of religious truths which are the most
essential, and without the apprehension of which they cannot be known.

3. But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

To love is to know and to be known. Compare 1 John 4:7, 8, “Every one

that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God; he that loveth not, knoweth
not God, for God is love.” This is the precise sentiment of the text. Love is
essential to knowledge. He that loves God, knows God. The apostle in this
connection interchanges love of the brethren and the love of God, because
the love of the brethren is only one of the forms in which the love of God
manifests itself. When he said, “Love edifieth,” he meant love to the
brethren, and without that love, he says, there can be no true knowledge;
but if a man love God, (which includes love to the brethren,) the same is
 163
known of him. What is meant by this last expression, is not easy to
determine. To be known of God may, according to scriptural usage, mean,
1. To be selected or approved by him, Exodus 33:12, 17. Nahum 1:7.
Matthew 7:23.
2. To be recognized as belonging to a particular class. So here, the sense
may be, ‘Is recognized by him as one of his disciples, or as one of his
children,
3. To be the object of God’s knowledge; but what this can mean in this
connection, unless it include the idea of approbation, it is not easy to
see.
4. According to others, the word (e]gnwstai) is to be taken in a Hophal
sense —’has been caused to know.’ ‘If any man loves God, the same
has by him been brought to the true knowledge.’
This view certainly suits the context. ‘If a man is without love, he has not
true knowledge; but if he love God, he has the right kind of knowledge.’
The later grammarians deny that the passive form of Greek verbs ever has
a causative sense analogous to the Hophal of Hebrew verbs. But as
intransitive verbs in Greek often have a causative signification, (see
Matthew 5:45; 28:19; 2 Corinthians 2:14,) it is not unreasonable that the
passive form should be so used, if the context require it. In Galatians 4:9,
Paul says, “If after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God;”
where the sense may be, ‘or rather have been taught of God.’ Whether the
general principle be admitted or not, that the passive of Greek verbs can
have this causative force, it is not improbable that Paul assumed that the
particular verb ginw>skein might mean cognoscere facere, (i.e. to teach,) a
sense attributed to it by Stephanus in his Thesaurus; and if so, the passive
as here used may mean, was taught. It is to be noticed, that it is only this
verb that he appears to use in this way. If, however, this interpretation be
rejected, as is done by the majority of modern commentators, as contrary
to Greek usage, the first explanation given above gives a good sense. ‘If
any love God, the same is approved of him, i.e. is recognized as having the
right kind of knowledge.’

4. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in

sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol (is) nothing in the world, and that
(there is) none other God but one.
 164
Concerning then. The particle (ou+n,) then serves to resume the subject of
v. 1 after the interruption occasioned by the preceding parenthesis. For the
general expression in v. 1, “Concerning idol-sacrifices,” we have here the
more definite one, “Concerning the eating of idol-sacrifices;” which was the
point in dispute. To determine whether it was proper to eat of these
sacrifices, it must be determined, first, what an idol is, and secondly, what
effect the eating would have. As to the former, Paul says, there is no idol,
(or an idol is nothing;) and as to the latter, that the eating could have no
effect on our religious state; it could make us neither better nor worse, v. 8.
From this it follows, that eating or not eating is a matter of indifference.
Nevertheless, if our eating causes others to sin, we ought not to eat. It is
worthy of remark that the apostle, in answering questions of conscience,
does not give a categorical reply, but gives the reason for his decision. So
here; and in ch. 11 he does not simply say it was wrong for Grecian
women to appear in public unveiled, but he unfolds the principles valid for
all time, on which the decision of that particular question rested.

As to the question, What is an idol? it is obvious that the word (e]idwlon,

image,) is used metonymically for the deity which the image was intended
to represent. It is of such deity, or rather of the heathen gods generally, the
apostle here speaks. His words are, “We know that oujde<n e]idwlon ejn
ko>smw|,” which may mean, either, an idol is nothing in the world; or, there
is no idol in the world, i.e. the universe. If the former version be adopted,
the sense may be, either, ‘these deities are nonentities,’ they have no
existence; or, they are powerless, they have no influence over the affairs of
men. In favor of that translation is the analogy of Scripture. In the Old
Testament the gods of the heathen are frequently said to be nothing,
vanities, lies, etc., Isaiah 41:24; 44:8, 9. Jeremiah 10:14. Psalms 115:4, 8.
So the Rabbis also said, Noverant utique Israelitae, idolum nihil esse,
Sanhdr. 63:2. But this explanation is not suitable here. As oujdei<v qeo>v in
the next clause means there is no God, oujde<n ei]dwlon must mean, there
is no idol. This does not mean that the heathen gods are either nonentities
or powerless, for in 10:19 Paul says they are demons. But it means, there
are no such beings in the universe as the heathen conceived their gods to
be. There was no Jupiter, Juno, or Mars. There is no God, no real divine
being but one. The objects of heathen worship were neither what the
heathen took them to be, nor were they gods in the true sense of that term.
 165

5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth,
as there be gods many, and lords many,

This verse admits of two interpretations. It is commonly understood to

mean, that although there are many imaginary gods in heaven and earth, i.e.
beings whom the heathen regard as divinities, yet in fact there is but one
God. When he says, there are many gods and many lords, he is to be
understood to mean that such is the fact in the mythology of the heathen.
A large number of commentators, however, understand the passage thus:
‘There is but one true God; for although it be admitted that there are many
beings called gods, as in fact there are gods many and lords many, yet to us
there is but one.’ The apostle concedes that, in the wide sense of the term,
there are many gods and lords; and, therefore, if it should be admitted
(what he does not admit) that the whole hierarchy of divinities, as
conceived of by the heathen, actually existed, it is nevertheless true that
there is but one God, the creator and end of all things. In favor of this
interpretation is the usage of the O. T. Deuteronomy 10:17, “The Lord
your God is God of gods and Lord of lords.” Joshua 22:22. Daniel 2:47.
Psalms 136:2, 3. These passages show that the words God and Lord are
applied in a wide sense to other beings than to the true God.
2. The position and force of the words are in favor of this view. They
mean, Sunt qui dii dicuntur; there are powers and beings who are called
gods, as there are gods many, and lords many. To make this mean, there
are in the estimation of the heathen many gods, is to insert something which
is not in the text.
3. In 10:19, 20, the apostle asserts that the objects of heathen worship are
real and powerful beings.
4. The apparent contradiction between saying, there is no idol in the world,
and saying, there are many gods, is easily removed. The meaning is, ‘There
is no such being in the universe as Jupiter or Mars; for although there is a
multitude of supernatural beings, called gods and lords, not only by the
heathen, but also in Scripture, yet there are no such beings as those which
the heathen imagine.’ The whole heathen mythology is a fable, the work of
the imagination. There are no such gods in existence, though there are
demons in abundance, of various ranks and powers, called gods. There are
two things which the apostle means to deny.
 166
1. The existence of such beings as the heathen conceived their gods to be.
2. That the supernatural beings who do really exist, and who are called
gods, are really divine. They are mere creatures.

6. But to us (there is but) one God, the Father, of whom (are) all things,
and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom (are) all things, and
we by him.

Though there are many creatures called gods, there is but one true God, the
creator of all things. To us, i.e. to Christians. There is one God, i.e. only
one being who is eternal, self-existing and almighty. This one God is, first,
the Father; not the first person of the Trinity, but our father. The word
does not here express the relation of the first to the second person in the
Godhead, but the relation of God as such to us as his children. When we
say, “Our Father who art in heaven,” the word Father designates the
Supreme Being, the Triune Jehovah. Secondly, of this one God it is said, of
him are all things. He, the one God, is the source of the whole universe,
and all that it contains. He created all things by the word of his power. All
other beings are his creatures. Thirdly, we are to him. He is our end; for his
glory we were created and redeemed. Our version rendering the words eijv
aujto>n, in him, is an unnecessary departure from their proper meaning.

As there is but one divine Being, so there is but one Lord, i.e. one
administrator of the universe, into whose hands all power in heaven and
earth has been committed, and who is the only mediator between God and
man. This one Lord is Jesus Christ, Jesus the Messiah, the historical
person, born in Bethlehem and crucified on Calvary. Of this one Lord it is
said, first, all things are by him. The all things in this clause must be
coextensive with the all things in the preceding one, i.e. the universe.
Comp. Ephesians 3:9. Colossians 1:16. Hebrews 1:2. The universe was
created through Jesus Christ, i.e. the energy of the one God was exercised
through the Logos, who became flesh, assuming our nature into personal
union with himself, and is therefore called Jesus Christ. This passage
affords a striking illustration of the fact that the person of Christ may be
denominated from his human nature, when what is affirmed of him is true
only of his divine nature. He is here called Jesus Christ, though the work
of creation attributed to him was the work of the Logos. Secondly, it is
 167
said of this one Lord, that we are by him. This does not mean we were
created by him; for we Christians are included in the all things. It would be
tautological to say, He created all things, and he created us. The meaning is,
we as Christians (not, we as creatures, for that had been said before), we as
the children of God are by him. We were redeemed by him; we are brought
unto God by him.

7. Howbeit (there is) not in every man that knowledge: for some with
conscience of the idol unto this hour eat (it) as a thing offered unto an idol;
and their conscience being weak is defiled.

The context shows that (hJ gnw~siv), the knowledge, means the particular
kind of knowledge of which he had been speaking, viz. the knowledge that
there is no idol in the world, or that the gods of the heathen are imaginary
beings. Though the weaker believers knew that there is but one true God,
they were still not fully persuaded that the gods of the heathen had no
existence. With conscience of an idol. The word sunei>dhsiv unites the
meanings of our words conscience and consciousness, being sometimes the
one and sometimes the other. Here the former meaning is better suited to
the context. Conscience of an idol means a conscience under the influence
of an idol; as in 1 Peter 2:19 conscience of God means a conscience under
the influence of God. 9 The moral judgments and feelings of the persons
referred to, were still influenced by the apprehension that the heathen gods
might be real beings. Unto this hour. The words (e[wv a]rti) until now, in
the common Text stand after the word for idol; most modern editors of the
Greek Testament, on the authority of the older MSS., place them before
that word. In the one position, they naturally qualify the word to eat;
‘until now they eat,’ i.e. they continue to eat. In the other, they qualify the
word conscience; with a conscience still under the inpuence of an idol,
which gives a better sense. Having this persuasion, or at least this
apprehension of the reality of the idol, they eat the sacrifice as a sacrifice.
That is, they do not regard it as ordinary meat, but as something which had
a religious character and influence, from the fact of its having been offered
in sacrifice. Hence their conscience being weak was defiled. A weak
conscience is one which either regards as wrong what is not in fact so; or
one which is not clear and decided in its judgments. According to the
Scriptures, “whatever is not of faith is sin,” Romans 14:23; therefore
 168
whatever a man does, thinking it is wrong, or doubtful whether it be wrong
or not, to him it is sin. Thus the man who eats an idol-sacrifice, uncertain
whether he is doing right or not, defiles his conscience. The conscience is
said to be defiled, either when it approves or cherishes sin or when it is
burdened by a sense of guilt. The latter form of pollution is that here
intended. The man who acts in the way supposed feels guilty, and is really
guilty.

8. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the
better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

This verse is analogous to v. 1, in so far that it contains a principle

adopted by the apostle as his own, which the Corinthians urged to justify
their latitudinarian practice with regard to these sacrifices. It is not
introduced as an objection, or as a point to be contested, but as an
admitted truth, the application of which is to be regulated by other
principles no less true. It is admitted that meat does not commend us to
God. Literally does not cause us to stand near to God; which involves the
idea expressed in our version. For eating makes us neither better nor
worse. It neither causes us to excel (perisseu>ein) nor to come behind
(uJsterei~n).

There is another view of the bearing of this passage which has much to
commend it and which has many advocates. It is regarded as assigning a
reason why the strong should have respect to the weak. ‘If meat were a
matter of importance, if it really commended us to God, there would be a
valid reason why you should eat these sacrifices. But as it is a matter of
indifference, you should not cause your brethren to offend.’ This would be
a natural interpretation if the caution which follows were introduced as an
inference. That is, if the apostle had said, ‘Eating is a matter of
indifference, therefore you should use your liberty with due regard to your
brethren. His language, however, is, ‘Meat does not commend us to God; it
makes us neither better nor worse; but take heed how you use your
liberty.’ It is evidently a concession limited by what follows; comp. 6:12,
“All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient;” see also 10:23.
 169
9. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a
stumblingblock to them that are weak.

Admitting you have the right to eat of these sacrifices, take care lest your
eating become an occasion of sin to your weaker brethren. Your liberty.
The word (ejxousi>a) means,
1. Ability or power.
2. Lawful power or right.
3. Authority; ‘Who gave thee this authority?’
4. Power over others, dominion or rule. Here the second sense is the one
in which the word is to be taken. Stumblingblock, ‘(pro>vkomma)
elsewhere rendered offense, in a moral sense is that which is an
occasion to sin, or which causes men to fall. In the same sense the
word (ska>ndalon, literally, a trap-stick,) scandal is used, Luke 17:1.
Romans 14:13; 1 John 2:10. The weak are the doubting, the undecided,
those “not having knowledge,” as is implied in the next verse.

10. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s
temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat
those things which are offered to idols;

This verse is designed to show how eating these sacrifices might be an

occasion of sin to others. For serves to introduce the illustration. See thee
having knowledge. This is the description of the strong. They were those
whose views were clear and their convictions decided. Sit at meat,
(katakei>menon,) literally, lying down, according to the ancient custom of
reclining on a couch at table. The word ajna>keimai, to lie up, is also used,
as the couches were usually higher than the table. In the idol’s temple. In
the tenth chapter the apostle teaches, that as eating of things offered to
idols was a matter of indifference, there was no harm in buying such meat
in the market, or in partaking of it at a private table; but that to eat it
within the precincts of the temple was an act of idolatry, and brought them
into communion with demons, and therefore utterly broke off their
connection with Christ. Here he views the matter simply under the aspect
of an offense, or in reference to its effect on the weaker brethren, and
therefore says nothing of the sinfulness of the act in itself. In like manner,
 170
in the eleventh chapter, speaking of it as a matter of decorum, he simply
condemns women speaking in church unveiled, as though he had no
objection to their speaking in public; but in the fourteenth chapter he
condemns the thing itself, and not merely the manner of doing it. Shall not
the conscience of him being weak (i.e. being uncertain whether he was
doing right or wrong,) be emboldened; literally, be edified. This must either
be understood ironically, which is out of keeping with the whole tone of
the passage, or the word must be taken in the sense of built up, carried
forward to the point (eijv ) of eating of the idol-sacrifices. That is, he might
be led to do what his conscience secretly condemned.

11. And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom
Christ died?

That is, shall your knowledge be the occasion of the perdition of a weak
brother? There are three forms in which the apostle expresses the
consequence of doing what the conscience is not satisfied is right. In v. 7
he says, the conscience is defiled; here, he says, the man perishes or is lost;
in Romans 14:23, he says, “He that doubteth is damned (condemned) if he
eat.” All these forms of expression amount to the same thing. Guilt,
condemnation and perdition are connected. The one implies the other.
Whatever brings guilt on the conscience exposes to condemnation, and
condemnation is perdition.

For whom Christ died. There is great power and pathos in these words.
Shall we, for the sake of eating one kind of meat rather than another,
endanger the salvation of those for whom the eternal Son of God laid down
his life? The infinite distance between Christ and us, and the almost
infinite distance between his sufferings and the trifling self-denial required
at our hands, give to the apostle’s appeal a force the Christian heart cannot
resist. The language of Paul in this verse seems to assume that those may
perish for whom Christ died. It belongs, therefore, to the same category as
those numerous passages which make the same assumption with regard to
the elect. If the latter are consistent with the certainty of the salvation of
all the elect, then this passage is consistent with the certainty of the
salvation of those for whom Christ specifically died. It was absolutely
certain that none of Paul’s companions in shipwreck was on that occasion
 171
to lose his life, because the salvation of the whole company had been
predicted and promised; and yet the apostle said that if the sailors were
allowed to take away the boats, those left on board could not be saved.
This appeal secured the accomplishment of the promise. So God’s telling
the elect that if they apostatize they shall perish, prevents their apostasy.
And in like manner, the Bible teaching that those for whom Christ died
shall perish if they violate their conscience, prevents their transgressing, or
brings them to repentance. God’s purposes embrace the means as well as
the end. If the means fail, the end will fail. He secures the end by securing
the means. It is just as certain that those for whom Christ died shall be
saved, as that the elect shall be saved. Yet in both cases the event is
spoken of as conditional. There is not only a possibility, but an absolute
certainty of their perishing if they fall away. But this is precisely what
God has promised to prevent. This passage, therefore, is perfectly
consistent with those numerous passages which teach that Christ’s death
secures the salvation of all those who were given to him in the covenant of
redemption. There is, however, a sense in which it is scriptural to say that
Christ died for all men. This is very different from saying that he died
equally for all men, or that his death had no other reference to those who
are saved than it had to those who are lost. To die for one is to die for his
benefit. As Christ’s death has benefited the whole world, prolonged the
probation of men, secured for them innumerable blessings, provided a
righteousness sufficient and suitable for all, it may be said that he died for
all. And in reference to this obvious truth the language of the apostle,
should any prefer this interpretation, may be understood, ‘Why should we
destroy one for whose benefit Christ laid down his life?’ All this is
perfectly consistent with the great scriptural truth that Christ came into
the world to save his people, that his death renders certain the salvation of
all those whom the Father hath given him, and therefore that he died not
only for them but in their place, and on the condition that they should
never die.

12. But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak
conscience, ye sin against Christ.

We sin against our brethren when we wound their weak conscience. The
one phrase explains the other. To wound a man’s conscience is to give it
 172
the pain of remorse. When we bring on him a sense of guilt we inflict on
him the greatest evil in our power; not only because a wounded spirit is
worse than a wounded body; but also because a sense of guilt alienates us
from God and brings us under the power of Satan. He who thus sins
against his brother, sins against Christ. This is true in two senses. An
injury done to a child is an injury to the parent, both because proper regard
for the parent would prevent one from injuring his child; and also because
the parent suffers in the child. They are so united that the injury of the one
is the injury of the other. So also it is a manifestation of want of love to
Christ, an insult and injury to him, to injure his people; and moreover, he
and they are so united that whatever of good or evil is done to them is
done also to him. “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of
these my brethren, ye have done it unto me,” Matthew 25:40. If we
believed this aright it would render us very careful not to wound our fellow
Christians, and make us also feel it to be an honor to relieve their wants.

13. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while
the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

The word skandali>zw means either to offend, or to cause to offend. That

is, either to provoke, or to cause to sin. The English word is also used in
both these senses. Matthew 17:27, “That we may not offend them,” i.e.
provoke them. Matthew 5:29, “If thy eye offend thee,” i.e. cause thee to
sin; and Matthew 18:6, “Whoso shall offend (i.e. cause to sin) one of these
little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were
hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”
This last quoted passage shows how serious a matter our Lord considers it
to lead even the weakest Christian into sin. It is still worse to lead him into
error, for error is the mother of many sins. It shows also how great an evil
sin is, and justifies the strong language of the apostle that he would never
eat flesh rather man cause his brother to offend. It is morally obligatory,
therefore, to abstain from indulging in things indifferent, when the use of
them is the occasion of sin to others. This is a principle the application of
which must be left to every man’s conscience in the fear of God. No rule
of conduct, founded on expediency, can be enforced by church discipline.
It was right in Paul to refuse to eat flesh for fear of causing others to
offend; but he could not have been justly exposed to discipline, had he
 173
seen fit to eat it. He circumcised Timothy, and refused to circumcise Titus.
Whenever a thing is right or wrong according to circumstances, every man
must have the right to judge of those circumstances.
 174

CHAPTER IX.
The apostle illustrates the duty of foregoing the exercise of our rights for the
good of others, by a reference to his giving up his undoubted right to be
supported by the church, vs. 1-18. He shows that in other ways he
accommodated himself to the opinions and prejudices of others, 19-23. He
reminds his readers that nothing good or great could be attained without
self-denial, vs. 24-27.

THE RIGHT OF MINISTERS TO AN ADEQUATE MAINTENANCE.

THE NECESSITY OF SELF-DENIAL. VS. 1-27.

Having in the preceding chapter urged on the strong the duty of foregoing
the use of their rights for the sake of their weaker brethren, the apostle
shows how he had acted on that principle. He was an apostle, and
therefore had all the rights of an apostle. His apostleship was abundantly
clear, because he had seen the Lord Jesus and was his immediate
messenger; and his divine mission had been confirmed, at least among the
Corinthians, beyond dispute. They were the seal of his apostleship, vs.
1-3. Being an apostle, he had the same right to be supported and to have
his family supported, had he chosen to marry, as Peter or any other
apostle, vs. 4-6. This right to adequate support he proves, First, from the
principle which lies at the foundation of society, that the laborer is worthy
of his reward, v. 7. Secondly, from the fact that this principle is recognized
in the Old Testament, even in its application to brutes, vs. 8-10. Thirdly,
from the principles of commutative justice, v. 11. Fourthly, from the fact
that the Corinthians recognized this right in the case of other teachers, v.
12. Fifthly, from the universal recognition of the principle among all
nations. Those who served the temple were supported from the temple, v.
13. Sixthly, from the express ordinance of Christ, who had ordained that
those who preached the gospel should live by the gospel, v. 14. This
undoubted right Paul had not availed himself of, and he was determined,
especially at Corinth, not to avail himself of it in the future. By so doing
he cut off occasion to question his motives, and gave himself a ground of
confidence in resisting his opponents which he was determined not to
relinquish, vs. 15-18. This was not, however, the only case in which he
 175
abstained from the exercise of his rights for the good of others. He
accommodated himself to Jews and Gentiles in every thing indifferent, that
he might gain the more, vs. 19-23. Such self-denial the heathen exercised to
gain a corruptible crown — should not Christians do as much to gain a
crown that is incorruptible? Without self-denial and effort the prize of
their high calling could never be attained, vs. 24-27.

1. Am I not an apostle? am I not free? 10 have I not seen Jesus Christ our
Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

The order of the first two of these questions is reversed by most editors
on satisfactory external and internal evidence. Am I not free? That is, am I
not a Christian, invested with all the liberties wherewith Christ has made
his people free? Am I not as free as any other believer to regulate my
conduct according to my own convictions of what is right; free from any
obligation to conform to the opinions or prejudices of other men? This,
however, is a freedom which I have not availed myself of. Nay more, Am I
not an apostle? Besides the rights which belong to all Christians, have I not
all the prerogatives of an apostle? Am I not on a level with the chief of the
apostles? Who of them can show a better title to the office? There were
three kinds of evidence of the apostleship.
1. The immediate commission from Christ in the sight of witnesses, or
otherwise confirmed.
2. Signs and wonders, and mighty deeds, 2 Corinthians 12:12.
3. The success of their ministry. No man could be an apostle who had not
seen the Lord Jesus after his resurrection, because that was one of the
essential facts of which they were to be the witnesses, Acts 1:22.
Neither could any man be an apostle who did not receive his
knowledge of the gospel by immediate revelation from Christ, for the
apostles were the witnesses also of his doctrines, Acts 1:8; 10:39;
22:15. Galatians 1:12.
The necessity of this immediate mission and independent knowledge is
insisted upon at length in the epistle to the Galatians. In proof of his
apostleship Paul here appeals only to two sources of evidence; first, to his
having seen the Lord Jesus; and second, to the success of his ministry. Ye
are my work in the Lord. That is, either, you in the Lord, your being in the
 176
Lord (i.e. your conversion), is my work; or, the words (ejn kuri>w| ) may
mean by the Lord, i.e. by his co-operation. The former explanation is to be
preferred, as the apostle’s object is to state in what sense they were his
work. It was as being in the Lord. The connection of this verse, and of the
whole chapter, with what precedes is obvious. His design is to show that
he had himself acted on the principle which he urged on others. Neither as
a Christian nor as an apostle had he insisted upon his rights, without
regard to the prejudices of others or the good of the church.

2. If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal
of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

If to others, i.e. in the estimation of others, I be not an apostle, surely I am

to you. Whatever pretense others may have to question my apostleship,
you certainly can have none; for the seal of my apostleship are ye in the
Lord. Your conversion is the seal of God to my commission. The
conversion of men is a divine work, and those by whom it is accomplished
are thereby authenticated as divine messengers. It is as much the work of
God as a miracle, and therefore, when duly authenticated, has the same
effect as an evidence of a divine commission. This, although valid evidence,
and as such adduced by the apostle, is nevertheless very liable to be
abused. First, because much which passes for conversion is spurious; and
secondly, because the evidence of success is often urged in behalf of the
errors of preachers, when that success is due to the truth which they
preach. Still there are cases when the success is of such a character, so
undeniable and so great, as to supersede the necessity of any other
evidence of a divine call. Such was the case with the apostles, with the
reformers, and with many of our modern missionaries.

3. Mine answer to them that do examine the is this:

That is, what precedes, and not what follows; for what follows is no
answer to those who called his apostleship in question. Both the words
here used, (ajnakri>nw) to examine, and (ajpologi>a), apology, or answer,
are forensic terms. Paul means that when any of his opponents undertook
to question him, as it were, judicially, as to his apostleship, he answered,
‘I have seen the Lord Jesus, and he has set his seal to my commission by
 177
the success with which he has crowned my labors.’ This answer satisfied
Peter, James and John, who gave to Paul the right hand of fellowship,
seeing that to him had been committed the apostleship unto the Gentiles,
Galatians 2:8, 9.

4. Have we not power to eat and drink?

Power here as above, 8, 9, means right. Have we not the right to eat and
drink? This, taken by itself, might mean, ‘Have we not the same right that
others have as to meats and drinks? All distinctions on this subject are
abolished as much for us as for others. Are we not free?’ The context
shows, however, clearly that such is not the apostle’s meaning. The right
in question is that which he goes on to establish. It is the right to abstain
from working, and of being supported by the church. Having proved his
apostleship, he proves his right to be supported, and then shows that he
had not availed himself of that right. He could, therefore, with the greater
freedom urge the Corinthians to forego their right to eat of things offered to
idols for the sake of their weaker brethren.

5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other

apostles, and (as) the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

This is an amplification of the preceding verse. Have we not the power, i.e.
the right. To lead about, a form of expression chosen because the apostles
were not stationary ministers, each with his own parish or diocese, but
were constantly traveling from place to place. A sister, i.e. a Christian
woman. A wife, this determines the relation which this traveling companion
sustained. It is as much as saying, ‘A sister who is a wife.’ Many of the
Fathers explain this passage as referring to the custom of rich women
attending the apostles on their journeys in order to minister to their
support. In this interpretation they are followed by many Romanists in
order to avoid the sanction which the ordinary and only legitimate
interpretation gives to the marriage of the clergy. As other apostles;
literally, “the other apostles.” This does not necessarily imply that all the
other apostles were married; but the implication is that as a body they
were married men. Olshausen and others understand the apostle, in the vs.
4-6, as asserting his liberty as to three points;
 178
1. As to meats, ‘Have I not the same liberty that you claim as to eating
and drinking?’
2. As to marriage, ‘Have I not the right to marry?’
3. As to support. But this introduces more into the text than the
connection warrants. There is no question about the right of marriage
alluded to in the context; and what follows is a defense neither of his
liberty to disregard the Jewish laws about meats and drinks, nor of his
right to be married.

And the brethren of the Lord. Whether these were the children of Joseph
and Mary, or the children of Mary, the sister of our Lord’s mother, is a
point very difficult to determine. Tradition, or the general voice of the
church, is greatly in favor of the latter opinion. The former, however, is
probably the opinion embraced by a majority of modern commentators.
The discussion of this question belongs properly to the evangelical
history. 11 The following passages may be compared on this subject:
Matthew 1:25; 12:46; 13:55. Luke 2:7. John 2:12. Acts 1:14. Galatians
1:19. And Cephas; this is the name by which Peter is called whenever he is
mentioned by Paul, except in the epistle to the Galatians; and Lachmann
reads Cephas instead of Peter in Galatians 1:18; 2:9; 10:14, leaving
Galatians 2:8, 9 the only exception. That Peter was married is clear from
Matthew 8:14. Mark 1:30.

6. Or I only and Barnabas, have we not power to forbear working?

The power to forbear working; literally, the right of not working. ‘Is there
any reason why I and Barnabas should be the only exceptions to the rule
that preachers of the word are to be supported by the churches?’ From
this it appears that Barnabas, while the apostle’s missionary companion,
followed his example in working with his own hands, that he might make
the gospel of Christ without charge. Paul proceeds to demonstrate the right
in question, not on grounds peculiar to the apostles or to that particular
age of the church; but on grounds applicable to all ministers and to all ages.
His first argument is from the universally recognized principle that labor is
entitled to reward. This principle is illustrated in the following verse.
 179
7. Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a
vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and
eateth not of the milk of the flock?

Here are three illustrations, taken from the common occupations of men, of
the principle in question. The soldier, the agriculturist, the shepherd, all
live by their labor; why should not the minister? His work is as engrossing,
as laborious, and as useful as theirs; why should not it meet with a similar
recompense? Who goeth to war, i.e. who serves in war, as a soldier, at his
own charges (i~di>oiv ojywni>oiv), on his own rations. What soldier in war
is called upon to support himself? If you force him to do it, you make him
a robber; and if ministers be required to support themselves, the danger is
that they will be forced to become men of the world. It is not, however,
the evil consequences, so much as the injustice of such a course, that the
apostle has in view. What is true of the soldier is true of the farmer and of
the shepherd, and of every other class of men.

8. Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

Say I these things as a man? This phrase (kata< a]nqrwpon lalei~n ), to

speak as a man, or after the manner of men, means in general, to speak as
men are wont to speak, to utter their thoughts, or principles, or use
illustrations derived from their customs. Romans 3:5. Galatians 3:15.
comp. Romans 6:19. The apostle means here to ask whether it was
necessary to appeal to the usages of men in support of the principle that
labor should be rewarded. Does not the law also say the same? i.e. does not
the word of God sanction the same principle? The law (oJ no>mov) means in
general that which binds. It is applied to the law of God, however revealed,
whether in the heart, the decalogue, the Pentateuch, or in the whole
Scriptures. The context must determine the specific reference in each
particular case. Here the law of Moses is intended.

9. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of
the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

For refers to the answer implied to the preceding question. ‘Does not the
law say the same? It does: for it is written,’ etc. The passage quoted is
 180
found in Deuteronomy 25:4, where it is forbidden to put a muzzle on the
oxen which draw the threshing machine over the corn, or which tread it out
with their feet; as both methods of threshing were common in Palestine as
well as the use of the flail or rods. Comp. Isaiah 28:28.; 41:15. Hosea
10:11. Doth God take care of oxen? It is perfectly certain that God does
care for oxen; for he feeds the young ravens when they cry; Job 38:41.
Psalms 147:9. Matthew 6:26. Luke 12:24. This, therefore, the apostle
cannot intend to deny. He only means to say that the law had a higher
reference. Although the proximate end of the command was that the
laboring brute should be treated justly, yet its ultimate design was to teach
men the moral truth involved in the precept. If God requires that even the
ox, which spends his strength in our service, should not be defrauded of his
reward, how much more strict will he be in enforcing the application of the
same principle of justice to his rational creatures.

10. Or saith he (it) altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt,
(this) is written: that he that plougheth should plough in hope; and that he
that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

“He sayeth it altogether.” This is not the meaning here; for this would
make the apostle assert that the command in question had exclusive
reference to men. The word (pa>ntwv) should be rendered assuredly, as in
Luke 4:43. Acts 18:21; 21:22, and frequently elsewhere. ‘This command
was assuredly given, says the apostle, for our sakes,’ i.e. for the sake of
man — not, for us ministers, or us apostles. It was intended to enforce the
principle that labor should have its reward, so that men may labor
cheerfully. That (o[ti); because. ‘It is written on our account, because he
that ploughs should (ojfei>lei, 2 Corinthians 12:11,) plough in hope,’ i.e.
of being rewarded. “And he that threshes should thresh in hope of
partaking of his hope,” i.e. of what he hoped for. The text is here doubtful.
The reading preferred by most editors gives a simpler form to the passage
12
— ‘He that thresheth (should thresh) in hope of partaking,’ (ejp ’
ejlpi>di tou~ mete>cein). The sense is the same. Some of the ancient, and
not a few of the most distinguished modern commentators assume that
Paul gives an allegorical interpretation to the passage in Deuteronomy.
They understand him to say that the passage is not to be understood of
oxen, but of us, ministers. ‘This command was given on account of us
 181
ministers, that we ploughers might plough in hope, and we threshers might
thresh in hope.’ But this is entirely foreign from the manner of the New
Testament writers. 13 They never argue except from the true historical
sense of Scripture. Galatians 4:21-31, is no exception to this remark; for
that passage is an illustration and not an argument.

11. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, (is it) a great thing if we shall
reap your carnal things?

That is, if we have bestowed on you one class of benefits, is it

unreasonable that we should receive from you another class? And if the
benefits which we bestow are spiritual, such as knowledge, faith and hope,
the fruits of the Spirit, and therefore of infinite value, is it much that we
should derive from you carnal things, i.e. things necessary for the support
of the body? On every principle of commutative justice, the minister’s
right to a support must be conceded.

12. If others be partakers of (this) power over you, (are) not we rather?
Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we
should hinder the gospel of Christ.

This is an argument directed specially to the Corinthians. They had

recognized in other teachers the right to a support; they could not,
therefore, with any show of reason, deny it to the apostle. This power
over you (th~v uJmw~n ejxousi>av) i.e. the right of which you are the objects.
For this use of the genitive, (power of you, for power over you), compare
Matthew 10:1. John 17:2. Undisputable as this right was in the case of
Paul, he did not exercise it, but suffered all things, i.e. endured all kinds of
privations. The word means to bear in silence. Lest we should hinder
(place any hinderance in the way of,) the gospel of Christ. Under the
circumstances in which Paul was placed, surrounded by implacable
enemies, it would have hindered the gospel had he done any thing which
gave the least ground to question the purity of his motives. He was willing
to suffer any thing rather man to give his opponents the slightest pretext
for their opposition to him.
 182
13. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live (of the
things) of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with
the altar?

What Paul here says is true of all religions, though his reference is
probably only to the Jewish. Those which minister about holy things (oiJ
ta< iJera< ergazo>menoi); those who perform the sacred services, i.e. those
who offer sacrifices. Eat of the temple, i.e. they derive their support from
the temple. Those attending the altar share with the altar, i.e. the priests
receive a portion of the sacrifices offered on the altar. If this was an
institution ordained by God himself, under the old dispensation, it has the
sanction of divine authority. The apostle’s concluding and conclusive
argument on this subject is contained in the following verse.

14. Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel
should live of the gospel.

Even so (ou[tw kai>), so also, i.e. as God had ordained under the Old
Testament, so also the Lord (i.e. Christ) had ordained under the New.
Christ has made the same ordinance respecting the ministers of the gospel,
that God made respecting the priests of the law. The Lord hath ordained
that, etc., (die>taxen toi~v), he commanded those who preach, etc. It was a
command to ministers themselves not to seek their support from secular
occupations; but to live of the gospel, as the priests lived of the temple.
Matthew 10:10. Luke 10:8. This is the law of Christ, obligatory on
ministers and people; on the latter to give, and on the former to seek a
support from the church and not from worldly avocations. There are
circumstances under which, as the case of Paul shows, this command
ceases to be binding on preachers. These are exceptions, to be justified,
each on its own merits; the rule, as a rule, remains in force. If this subject
were viewed in this light, both by preachers and people, there would be
little difficulty in sustaining the gospel, and few ministers would be
distracted by worldly pursuits.

15. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things,
that it should be so done unto me: for (it were) better for me to die, than
that any man should make my glorying void.
 183

None of these things, may refer to the various arguments above mentioned.
‘I have availed myself of none of these arguments;’ or, it may refer to the
right itself, which was manifold, the right of a recompense for labor, v. 7;
the right to an equivalent for benefits conferred, v. 11; the right to be
treated as other ministers were, v. 12; the right to be dealt with according
to the law of God in the Old Testament, and of Christ in the New. ‘I have
used none of these rights. Neither have I written these things that it should
(in future) be so done (i.e. according to what I have written) unto me (ejn
ejmoi> ),’ in my case. Paul had no intention of changing his course in this
matter. The reason for this determination he immediately assigns. For it
were better for me to die than that any man should make my glorying void,
that is, deprive me of my ground of glorying. What enabled Paul to face his
enemies with joyful confidence, was his disinterested self-denial in
preaching the gospel without reward. And this he calls his (kau>chma), or
ground of boasting. That this, and not merely preaching the gospel, was
the proof of his integrity to which he could confidently refer, he shows in
the following verses.

16. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity
is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

The reason why it was so important to him to refuse all remuneration as a

minister was, that although he preached the gospel that was no
(kau>chma), ground of boasting to him. That he was bound to do, yea, woe
was denounced against him unless he did preach it. Nothing could be a
ground of boasting, but something which he was free to do, or not to do.
He was free to receive or to refuse a remuneration for preaching; and
therefore his refusing to do so was a ground of glorying, that is, a proof of
integrity to which he could with confidence appeal.

17. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a
dispensation (of the gospel) is committed unto me.

This is the proof that preaching was no ground of boasting. If he preached

willingly, i.e. if it were optional with him to preach or not to preach, then it
would be a ground of boasting; but if he did it unwillingly, i.e. if it was not
 184
optional with him, (as was in fact the case), he was only discharging an
official duty, and had nothing to boast of. That Paul preached the gospel
willingly, that he esteemed it his highest joy and glory, is abundantly
evident from his history and his writings. Romans 1:5; 11:13; 15:15, 16; 1
Corinthians 15:9, 10. Galatians 1:15, 16. Ephesians 3:8. The difference,
therefore, here expressed between (eJkw>n and a]kwn), willing and unwilling,
is not the difference between cheerfully and reluctantly, but between
optional and obligatory. He says he had a dispensation or stewardship
(oijkonomi>a) committed to him. These stewards (oiJkono>moi) were
commonly slaves. There is a great difference between what a slave does in
obedience to a command, and what a man volunteers to do of his own
accord. And this is the precise difference to which the apostle here refers.
The slave may feel honored by the command of his master, and obey him
gladly, still it is but a service. So Paul was commanded to preach the
gospel, and he did it with his whole heart; but he was not commanded to
refuse to receive a support from the churches. The former, therefore, was
not a ground of boasting, not a thing for which he could claim the reward of
special confidence; the latter was. He could appeal to it as a proof, not
only of his obedience, but of the purity of the motive which prompted
that obedience. A physician may attend the sick from the highest motives,
though he receives a remuneration for his services. But when he attends the
poor gratuitously, though the motives may be no higher, the evidence of
their purity is placed beyond question. Paul’s ground of glorying,
therefore, was not preaching, for that was a matter of obligation; but his
preaching gratuitously, which was altogether optional. If, says he, my
preaching is optional, I have a reward; not in the sense of merit in the
sight of God, but in the general sense of recompense. He gained something
by it. He gained the confidence even of his enemies. But as preaching was
not optional but obligatory, he did not gain confidence by it. Mere
preaching, therefore, was not a (kau>chma) ground of boasting, but
preaching gratuitously was. A dispensation of the gospel is committed to
me; in the Greek it is simply, ‘I am intrusted with a stewardship (comp.
Galatians 2:7, i.e. an office), which I am bound to discharge. I am in this
matter a mere servant.’ The principle on which the apostle’s argument is
founded is recognized by our Lord, when he said, “When ye shall have
done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable
servants: we have done that which was our duty to do,” Luke 17:10.
 185

18. What is my reward then? (Verily) that, when I preach the gospel, I may
make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the
gospel.

To do what he was commanded was no ground of reward; but to preach

the gospel without charge was something of which he could boast, i.e.
make a ground of confidence. What then is my reward? i.e. what
constitutes my reward? in the sense explained; what gives the a ground of
boasting? The answer follows, (i[na being used instead of the exegetical
infinitive; comp. John 15:8; 1 John 4:17.) that preaching I should make the
gospel free of charge. In other words, that I should not use my right in the
gospel. In other words, Paul’s reward was to sacrifice himself for others.
He speaks of his being permitted to serve others gratuitously as a reward.
And so it was, not only because it was an honor and happiness to be
allowed to serve Christ in thus serving his people; but also because it
secured him the confidence of those among whom he labored by proving
his disinterestedness. The common version, that I abuse not, although
agreeable to the common meaning of katacra>omai, is not consistent with
the context, and is not demanded by the usage of the word; see 7:31. It was
not the abuse, but the use of his right to be supported, that the apostle had
renounced.

19. For though I be free from all (men), yet have I made myself servant
unto all, that I might gain the more.

The apostle’s self-denial and accommodation of himself to the weakness

and prejudices of others, was not confined to the point of which he had
been speaking. He constantly acted upon the principle of abstaining in
things indifferent, from insisting on his rights. Though free from all, i.e.
independent of all men, and under no obligation to conform my conduct to
their opinions, I subjected myself to all. In what way he did this, and to
what extent, is explained by what follows. His motive in thus
accommodating himself to others, was, that he might gain the more, or the
greater number, the majority; comp. 10:5. No one was more yielding in
matters of indifference, no one was more unyielding in matters of principle
than this apostle. So long as things indifferent were regarded as such, he
 186
was ready to accommodate himself to the most unreasonable prejudices;
but when they were insisted upon as matters of necessity, he would not
give place, no not for an hour, Galatians 2:5.

20. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to
them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that
are under the law;

To the Jews he became as a Jew, i.e. he acted as they acted, he conformed

to their usages, observed the law, avowing at the same time that he did it as
a matter of accommodation. Wherever the fair inference from his
compliance would have been that he regarded these Jewish observances as
necessary, he strenuously refused compliance. His conduct in relation to
Timothy and Titus, before referred to, shows the principle on which he
acted. The former he circumcised, because it was regarded as a concession.
The latter he refused to circumcise, because it was demanded as a matter of
necessity. There are two things, therefore, to be carefully observed in all
cases of concession to the opinions and practices of others: first, that the
point conceded be a matter of indifference; for Paul never yielded in the
smallest measure to any thing which was in itself wrong. In this his
conduct was directly the opposite to that of those who accommodate
themselves to the sins of men, or to the superstitious observances of false
religions. And secondly, that the concession does not involve any
admission that what is in fact indifferent is a matter of moral obligation.
The extent to which Paul went to conciliate the Jews may be learnt from
what is recorded in Acts 21:18-27.

To those under the law. These were not converted Jews, because they were
already gained to the gospel, and did not need to be won, which is the
sense in which the expression to gain is used in this verse, as he had just
spoken of gaining the Jews. Perhaps those under the law, as distinguished
from Jews, were proselytes, i.e. Gentiles who had embraced Judaism. But
most of these proselytes were not strictly under the law. They
acknowledged Jehovah to be the only true God, but did not subject
themselves to the Mosaic institutions. The common opinion is, that this
clause is only explanatory of the former, ‘To the Jews, i.e. to those under
the law, I became as a Jew, i.e. as one under the law.’
 187

“Not being myself under the law,” mh< w{n aujto<v no>mon, This clause
happened to be omitted from the Elziver edition of the Greek Testament
from which our translation was made, and therefore fails in the common
English version. It is found, however, in all the more ancient manuscripts,
in many of the fathers and early versions, and is therefore adopted by
most modern editors. The internal evidence is also in its favor. It was
important for Paul to say that although acting as under the law, he was not
under it; because it was a fundamental principle of the gospel which he
preached, that believers are freed from the law. “We are not under law, but
under grace,” Romans 6:14. It was necessary, therefore, that his
compliance with the Jewish law should be recognized as a matter of
voluntary concession.

21. To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to
God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without
law.

Those without law were the heathen, who had no written revelation as the
rule of their conduct; comp. Romans 2:12. As, however, the word
(a]nomov), without law, means also reckless, regardless of moral restraint,
Paul is careful to explain in what sense he acted as without law. When
among the Gentiles he did not conform to the Jewish law; in that sense, he
was without law; but he did not act as without law to God, i.e. without
regard to the obligation of the moral law; but as under law to Christ, i.e. as
recognizing his obligation to obey Christ, whose will is the highest rule of
duty. In other words, he was not under the Jewish law; but he was under
the moral law. He disregarded the Jewish law that he might gain those
without law, i.e. the Gentiles. When in Jerusalem, he conformed to the
Jewish law; when in Antioch he refused to do so, and rebuked Peter for
acting as a Jew among the Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-21. It would have
greatly impeded, if not entirely prevented, the progress of the gospel
among the heathen, had it been burdened with the whole weight of the
Jewish ceremonies and restrictions. Peter himself had told even the Jews
that the Mosaic law was a yoke which neither they nor their fathers had
been able to bear, Acts 15:10. And Paul said to the Galatians, that he had
resisted the Judaizers, in order that the truth of the gospel might remain
 188
with them, Galatians 2:5.

22. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made
an things to all (men), that I might by all means save some.

By the weak many understand the Jews and Gentiles considered under
another aspect, i.e. as destitute of the power to comprehend and
appreciate the gospel. The only reason for this interpretation is the
assumption that to gain in this connection must mean to convert, or make
Christians of, and therefore, those to be gained must be those who were
not Christians. But the word means merely to win over, to bring to proper
views, and therefore may be used in reference to weak and superstitious
believers as well as of unconverted Jews and Gentiles. As in the preceding
chapter the weak mean weak Christians, men who were not clear and
decided in their views, and as the very design of the whole discussion was
to induce the more enlightened Corinthian Christians to accommodate
themselves to those weaker brethren, it is altogether more natural to
understand it in the same way here. Paul holds himself up as an example.
To the weak he became as weak; he accommodated himself to their
prejudices that he might win them over to better views. And he wished the
Corinthians to do the same. I am made all things to all men. This
generalizes all that had been said. It was not to this or that class of men,
that he was thus conciliatory, but to all classes, and as to all matters of
indifference; that he might at all events (pa>ntwv) save some.

23. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with
(you).

This I do; or, according to the reading now generally adopted (pa>nta
instead of tou~to), I do all things, ‘my whole course of action, not merely
in thus accommodating myself to the prejudices of others, but in every
thing else, is regulated for the promotion of the gospel.’ This gives a better
sense; for to say, This I do, would be only to repeat what is included in the
preceding verse. Paul lived for the gospel. He did all things for it. That I
may be a joint-partaker thereof, i.e. a partaker with others; not, with you,
as there is nothing to confine the statement to the Corinthians. To be a
partaker of the gospel, means, of course, to be a partaker of its benefits;
 189
the subject of the redemption which it announces. It is necessary to live
for the gospel, in order to be a partaker of the gospel.

24. Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the
prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

An exhortation to self-denial and exertion, clothed in figurative language.

As the exhortation is addressed principally to the Gentile converts, the
imagery used is derived from the public games with which they were so
familiar. These games, the Olympian and Isthmian, the latter celebrated
every third summer in the neighborhood of Corinth, were the occasions for
the concourse of the people from all parts of Greece. The contests in them
excited the greatest emulation in all classes of the inhabitants. Even the
Roman emperors did not refuse to enter the lists. To be a victor was to be
immortalized with such immortality as the breath of man can give. To
Greeks, therefore, no allusions could be more intelligible, or more effective,
than those to these institutions, which have nothing to answer to them in
modern times.

Know ye not. He took for granted they were familiar with the rules of the
games to which he referred. That those running in a race; literally in the
stadium or circus in which the games were celebrated, so called because it
was a stadium (a little more than two hundred yards) in length. All run, but
one obtains the prize. It was not enough to start in this race; it was not
enough to persevere almost to the end; it was necessary to outrun all
competitors and be first at the goal. But one took the prize. So run that ye
may obtain. That is, run as that one runs, in order that ye may obtain. The
greatest self-denial in preparation, and the greatest effort in the contest,
were necessary to success. In the Christian race there are many victors; but
the point of the exhortation is, that all should run as the one victor ran in
the Grecian games.

25. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things.
Now they (do it) to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

Every one who striveth, etc. (pa~v oJ ajgwnizo>menov) every one accustomed
to contend, i.e. every professional athlete. The word includes all kinds of
 190
contests, whether in running, wrestling or fighting. Is temperate in all
things, i.e. controls himself as to all things. He exercises self-denial in diet,
in bodily indulgences, and by painful and protracted discipline. The
ancient writers abound in rules of abstinence and exercise, to be observed
by competitors in preparation for the games. They indeed for a corruptible
crown, we for an incorruptible. If the heathen submitted to such severe
discipline to gain a wreath of olive or garland of pine leaves, shall not
Christians do as much for a crown of righteousness which fadeth not
away?

26. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth
the air:

I therefore, i.e. because so much effort is necessary to success. So run, i.e.

run not in such a manner as one who runs uncertainly (ajdh>lwv). That may
mean unconspicuously, not as one unseen, but as one on whom all eyes are
fixed. Or more probably the idea is, not as one runs who is uncertain where
or for what he is running. A man who runs uncertain as to his course or
object, runs without spirit or effort. So fight I. The allusion is here to
boxing, or fighting with the fist. Not as one beating the air. Here again the
figure is doubtful. A man who is merely exercising, without an antagonist,
may be said to smite the air. A man puts forth little strength in such a
sham conflict. Or the man who aims at his antagonist, and fails to hit him,
smites the air. This is the better explanation. Virgil has the same figure to
express the same idea. He says of a boxer who missed his antagonist,
“vires in ventum effudit.” AEn. v. 446. In either way the meaning is the
same. Nothing is accomplished. The effort is in vain. In 14:9, the apostle
says of those who speak in an unknown tongue, that they speak into the
air. That is, they speak to no effect.

27. But I keep under my body, and bring (it) into subjection: lest that by any
means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away.

In opposition to the fruitless or objectless fighting just described, Paul

says, I keep under my body; literally I bruise my body. (uJpwpia>zw, to
smite under the eye, to bruise, to smite, Luke 18:5.) His antagonist was his
body, which he so smote, i.e. so dealt with, as to bring it into subjection;
 191
literally, to lead about as a slave. Perhaps in reference to the custom of the
victor leading about his conquered antagonist as a servant; though this is
doubtful. The body, as in part the seat and organ of sin, is used for our
whole sinful nature. Romans 8:13. It was not merely his sensual nature
that Paul endeavored to bring into subjection, but all the evil propensities
and passions of his heart. Lest having preached to others (khru>xav),
Perhaps the apostle means to adhere to the figure and say, ‘Lest having
acted the part of a herald, (whose office at the Grecian games was to
proclaim the rules of the contest and to summon the competitors or
combatants to the lists,) he himself should be judged unworthy of the
prize.’ As, however, the word is so often used for preaching the gospel, he
may intend to drop the figure and say, ‘He made these strenuous exertions,
lest, having preached the gospel to others, he himself should become
(ajdo>kimov) a reprobate, one rejected.’ What an argument and what a
reproof is this! The reckless and listless Corinthians thought they could
safely indulge themselves to the very verge of sin, while this devoted
apostle considered himself as engaged in a life-struggle for his salvation.
This same apostle, however, who evidently acted on the principle that the
righteous scarcely are saved, and that the kingdom of heaven suffereth
violence, at other times breaks out in the most joyful assurance of
salvation, and says that he was persuaded that nothing in heaven, earth or
hell could ever separate him from the love of God. Romans 8:38, 39. The
one state of mind is the necessary condition of the other. It is only those
who are conscious of this constant and deadly struggle with sin, to whom
this assurance is given. In the very same breath Paul says, “O wretched
man that I am;” and, “Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory,”
Romans 7:24, 25. It is the indolent and self-indulgent Christian who is
always in doubt.
 192

CHAPTER X.
A continuation of the exhortation to self-denial and caution, vs. 1-13.
Express prohibition of joining in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen,
vs. 14-22. Particular directions as to the use of meat sacrificed to idols,
vs. 23-33.

THE NECESSITY OF SELF-DENIAL ARGUED

FROM THE CASE OF THE ISRAELITES. VS. 1-13.

At the close of the preceding chapter the apostle had exhorted his readers
to self-denial and effort, in order to secure the crown of life. He here
enforces that exhortation, by showing how disastrous had been the want of
such self-control in the case of the Israelites. They had been highly favored
as well as we. They had been miraculously guided by the pillar of cloud;
they had been led through the Red Sea; they had been fed with manna from
heaven, and with water from the rock; and yet the great majority of them
perished, vs. 1-5. This is a solemn warning to Christians not to give way
to temptation, as the Israelites did, v. 6. That is, not to be led into idolatry,
v. 7, nor into fornication, v. 8, nor into tempting Christ, v. 9, nor into
murmuring, v. 10. In all these points the experience of the Israelites was a
warning to Christians; and therefore those who thought themselves secure
should take heed lest they fall, vs. 11, 12. God is merciful, and would not
suffer them to be too severely tempted, v. 13.

1. Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all
our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

Moreover. The true reading is not (de> ) moreover, but (ga>r) for, which
marks the connection with what precedes. ‘We must use self-denial and
effort; for, brethren, our fathers, notwithstanding all they experienced,
perished.’ I would not have you ignorant, Romans 1:10; 11:25, a formula
used when something specially important is to be presented. That (not
how that). All our fathers. The emphasis is on all. ‘All our fathers left
Egypt; Caleb and Joshua alone entered the promised land.’ All run, but one
 193
obtains the prize. The history of the church affords no incident better
suited to enforce the necessity of guarding against false security, than that
selected by the apostle. The Israelites doubtless felt, as they stood on the
other side of the Red Sea, that all danger was over, and that their entrance
into the land of promise was secured. They had however a journey beset
with dangers before them, and perished because they thought there was no
need of exertion. So the Corinthians, when brought to the knowledge of the
gospel, thought heaven secure. Paul reminds them that they had only
entered on the way, and would certainly perish unless they exercised
constant self-denial. Our fathers. Abraham is our father, though we are not
his natural descendants. And the Israelites were the fathers of the
Corinthian Christians, although most of them were Gentiles. Although this
is true, it is probable that the apostle, although writing to a church, many,
if not most, of whose members were of heathen origin, speaks as a Jew to
Jews; as he often addresses a congregation as a whole, when what he says
has reference only to a part.

Were under the cloud, not underneath it, but under its guidance. Exodus
13:21. “The Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead
them; and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, to go by day and
night.” See Numbers 9:15, 23; 14:14. Deuteronomy 1:33. Psalms 78:14.
etc. No more decisive evidence could have been given of their election as a
people, than this supernatural guidance. The symbol of the divine presence
and favor was before their eyes day and night. If any people ever had
reason to think their salvation secure, it was those whom God thus
wonderfully guided. They all passed through the sea. Would God permit
those to perish for whom he had wrought so signal a deliverance, and for
whose sake he sacrificed the hosts of Egypt? Yet their carcasses were
strewed in the wilderness. It is not enough, therefore, to be recipients of
extraordinary favors; it is not enough to begin well. It is only by constant
self-denial and vigilance, that the promised reward can be obtained. This is
the lesson the apostle intends to inculcate.

2. And were all baptized 14 unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

Baptized unto Moses, i.e. in reference to Moses, so as by baptism to be

made his disciples. See 1:13. Romans 6:3. In the cloud and in the sea. The
 194
cloud and the sea did for them, in reference to Moses, what baptism does
for us in reference to Christ. Their passage through the sea, and their
guidance by the cloud, was their baptism. It made them the disciples of
Moses; placed them under obligation to recognize his divine commission
and to submit to his authority. This is the only point of analogy between
the cases, and it is all the apostle’s argument requires. One class of
commentators says that they were immersed in the sea, and therefore it
was a baptism; another says, the cloud rained upon them, and on that
account they are said to have been baptized. Both suggestions are equally
forced. For the people were baptized as much in the cloud as in the sea;
but they were not immersed in the cloud nor sprinkled by the sea. There is
no allusion to the mode of baptism. Neither is the point of analogy to be
sought in the fact, that the cloud was vapor and the sea water. The cloud
by night was fire. The point of similarity is to be found, not in any thing
external, but in the effect produced. The display of God’s power in the
cloud and in the sea, brought the people into the relation of disciples to
Moses. It inaugurated the congregation, and, as it were, baptized them to
him, bound them to serve and follow him.

3. And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

As they had their baptism, so they had their eucharist; and they all had it.
They all eat the same spiritual meat. They were all alike favored, and had
therefore equal grounds of hope. Yet how few of them reached the
promised rest!

The reference is here obviously to the manna, which the apostle calls
spiritual meat. Why it is so called is very doubtful.
1. The word spiritual may mean, partaking of the nature of spirit, a sense
attributed to the word in 15:44, where, “spiritual body” is assumed to
mean a refined, aetherial body. The manna, according to this view, is
called spiritual meat, because it was a refined kind of food; much in the
way in which we use the word celestial as an epithet of excellence.
This interpretation derives some support from Psalms 78:25, where
the manna is called “angels’ food.” By Josephus, A. III. 1:6, it is called,
“divine and wonderful food.”
 195
2. A second interpretation assumes that spiritual means having a spiritual
import. “Spiritual meat” would then be equivalent to typical. ‘They eat
of that bread which was the type of the true bread from heaven.’
Neither of these views, however, is consistent with the scriptural use
of the word. Spiritual neither means refined nor typical. In 15:44,
“spiritual body” means a body adapted to the spirit as its organ.
3. Others give the word here its very common sense, pertaining to the
spirit; as, in the preceding chapter, “carnal things” are things pertaining
to the body, and “spiritual things” are things pertaining to the soul.
The manna, according to this interpretation, was designed not only for
the body, but for the soul. It was spiritual food; food intended for the
spirit, because attended by the Holy Spirit and made the means of
spiritual nourishment. This is a very commonly received
interpretation. Calvin assumes it to be the only possible meaning of the
passage, and founds on it an argument for his favorite doctrine, that the
sacraments of the Old Testament had the same efficacy as those of the
New. But this exalts the manna into a sacrament, which it was not. It
was designed for ordinary food; as Nehemiah (9:15) says, “Thou
gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth
for them water out of the rock for their thirst.” And our Lord
represents it in the same light, when he said, “Your fathers did eat
manna in the wilderness and are dead.” John 6:49. He contrasts
himself, as the true bread from heaven which gives life to the soul, with
the manna which had no spiritual efficacy.
4. One of the most common meanings of the word spiritual in Scripture
is, derived from the Spirit. Spiritual gifts and spiritual blessings are
gifts and blessings of which the Spirit is the author. Every thing which
God does in nature and in grace, he does by the Spirit. He garnished the
heavens by the Spirit; and the Spirit renews the face of the earth. When
therefore it is said, God gave them bread from heaven to eat, it means
that the Spirit gave it; for God gave it through the Spirit. Thus God is
said to renew and sanctify men, because the Spirit of God is the author
of regeneration and sanctification. The manna therefore was spiritual
food, in the same sense in which the special gifts of God are called
spiritual gifts. That is, it was given by the Spirit. It was not natural
food, but food miraculously provided.
 196
In the same sense, in the next verse, the water is called spiritual drink,
because miraculously produced. In Galatians 4:29, the natural birth of
Isaac is said to have been after the Spirit, because due to the special
intervention of God. As the miraculous deliverance and miraculous
guidance of the Israelites was their baptism, so their being miraculously fed
was their Lord’s Supper. They were as signal marks of the divine presence
and favor as sacraments are to us. If their privileges did not prevent their
perishing in the wilderness, ours will not save us. If the want of self-denial
and vigilance destroyed them, it will destroy us.

4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The water which they drank was spiritual, because derived from the Spirit,
i.e. by the special intervention of God. They all drank (e]pion) of it once
when first provided, and they continued to drink (e]pinon) of it, for it
followed them. Whatever difficulties may be connected with the
interpretation of this verse, two things are therein plainly taught. First,
that the Israelites were constantly supplied in a miraculous manner with
water; and secondly, that the source of that supply was Christ. The
principal difficulties in the passage are, the declaration that the Rock
followed the Israelites; and that the rock was Christ. How are these
statements to be understood?
1. Some take the passage literally, and assume that the rock smitten by
Moses actually rolled after the Israelites during all their journey. Such
was the tradition of the Jews, as is abundantly proved by the
quotations from their writings, by Wetstein, Schoettgen and
Lightfoot.15 According to the local tradition, as old at least as the
Koran, the rock smitten by Moses was not part of the mountain, but a
detached rock, pierced with holes whence the water is said to have
flowed. This view of the passage makes the apostle responsible for a
Jewish fable, and is inconsistent with his divine authority. Those who
adopt this interpretation do not suppose that the rock actually
followed the Israelites, but that the apostle was misled by the tradition
of his times.
2. Others say that by the rock following them is meant that the water out
 197
of the rock followed them. There is nothing unnatural in this. To say
that the vines of France follow the people wherever they go, would be
no violent figure to express the fact that the wine produced by those
vines followed them. No man at least would be disposed to understand
the expression literally. In Psalms 105:41, it is said, “He opened the
rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in dry places like a river,”
which at least proves that the supply of water was very copious, and
flowed to a considerable distance.
3. It is not necessary, however, to assume that either the rock or the
water out of the rock followed them. The rock that followed them was
Christ. The Logos, the manifested Jehovah, who attended the Israelites
in their journey, was the Son of God who assumed our nature, and was
the Christ. It was he who supplied their wants. He was to them the
fountain of living waters. He was the spiritual rock of which they
drank. The word spiritual may have the same general force here as in
the preceding clauses.
The bread and water are called spiritual because supernatural. So the rock
was a supernatural rock, though in a somewhat different sense. The manna
was supernatural as to its origin; the rock, as to its nature. It is not
uncommon for a word to be taken in the same connection in different,
though nearly allied senses. Compare the use of this word spiritual in 2:15
and 3:1; and fqe>irei and fqerei~ in 3:17. But in what sense was the rock
Christ? Not that Christ appeared under the form of a rock; nor that the
rock was a type of Christ, for that does not suit the connection. The idea
is not that they drank of the typical rock; it was not the type but the
anti-type that supplied their wants. The expression is simply figurative.
Christ was the rock in the same sense that he is the vine. He was the
source of all the support which the Israelites enjoyed during their journey
in the wilderness.

This passage distinctly asserts not only the preexistence of our Lord, but
also that he was the Jehovah of the Old Testament. He who appeared to
Moses and announced himself as Jehovah, the God of Abraham, who
commissioned him to go to Pharaoh, who delivered the people out of
Egypt, who appeared on Horeb, who led the people through the
wilderness, who dwelt in the temple, who manifested himself to Isaiah,
 198
who was to appear personally in the fullness of time, is the person who
was born of a virgin, and manifested himself in the flesh. He is called,
therefore, in the Old Testament, an angel the angel of Jehovah, Jehovah,
the Supreme Lord, the Mighty God, the Son of God — one whom God
sent — one with him, therefore, as to substance, but a distinct person. Our
Lord said, Abraham saw his day, for he was before Abraham, John 8:58;
John says, 12:41, Isaiah beheld his glory in the temple; Paul says, the
Israelites tempted him in the wilderness, 1 Corinthians 10:9, and that
Moses suffered his reproach, Hebrews 11:26; Jude 5, says, the Lord, or
(as Lachmann, after the ancient MSS. and versions, reads) Jesus, saved his
people out of Egypt. This truth early impressed itself on the mind of the
Christian church, as appears from the prayer in the ancient Liturgies, O
Adonai (Supreme Lord), et Dux Domus Israel, qui Mosi in igne flammeo
rubi apparuisti, et ei in Sina aquam dedisti, veni ad redimendum nos in
brachio extracto.

5. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were
overthrown in the wilderness.

But, i.e. notwithstanding they had been thus highly favored. With many;
literally, with the greater number. God was not well pleased, that is, he was
displeased. The proof of his displeasure was that they were overthrown in
the wilderness. Literally, they were strewed as corpses in the wilderness.
Their pain through the desert could be traced by the bones of those who
perished through the judgments of God.

6. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust
after evil things, as they also lusted.

These things were our examples; literally, our types. A type is an

impression; any thing produced by blows; then an impression which has a
resemblance to something else; then a model to which some other person
or thing should be, or in point of fact would be, conformed. The Israelites
and the facts of their history were our types, because we shall be
conformed to them if we do not exercise caution. Our doom will
correspond to theirs. They therefore stand as warnings to us. The
particular thing against which their fate was designed to warn us, is lusting
 199
after evil. According to Numbers 11:4, the people lusted after, i.e. they
inordinately longed for, the fleshpots of Egypt, and said, Who shall give us
flesh to eat? God gave them their desire — “but while the flesh was yet
between their teeth, he smote them with a great plague, and the place was
called the ‘graves of lust,’ for there they buried the people that lusted,”
Numbers 11:34. Comp. Psalms 78:27-31, and 105:14, 15. This was a
perpetual warning against the indulgence of inordinate desires for forbidden
objects. It was specially appropriate as a warning to the Corinthians not to
desire participation in the sacrificial feasts of the heathen in which they
had been accustomed to indulge.

7. Neither be ye idolaters, as (were) some of them; as it is written, The

people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

The Corinthians were as much exposed to temptation on this subject as

the Israelites had been, and were quite as liable to fall into idolatrous
practices. The Israelites did not consider themselves as idolaters when
they made the golden calf; they did not believe that the second
commandment forbade the worship of the true God by images, and it was
Jehovah whom they designed to worship. The feast was proclaimed as a
feast to Jehovah, Exodus 32: 6. They made the same excuse for the use of
images as the Romanists now do; and the same in effect as that which the
Corinthians made for their compliance with heathen usages. The latter did
not consider the participation of the feasts in the idol’s temple as an act of
idolatry. As the Israelites perished for their sin, their excuse
notwithstanding, so those who are in fact idolaters, whether they so regard
themselves or not, must expect a like fate. It is not enough to make a thing
right, that we think it to be so. Things do not change their nature according
to our thoughts about them. Murder is murder, though man in his
self-conceit and pride may call it justifiable homicide.

They sat down to eat and to drink, i.e. of the sacrifices offered to Jehovah
in the presence of the golden calf, as a symbol of creative power — and
rose up to play, i.e. to dance, as that amusement was, among the ancients,
connected with their religious feasts. Homer, Od. 8:251.
 200
8. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in
one day three and twenty thousand.

Idolatry and fornication have always been so intimately connected that the
former seldom fails to lead to the latter. This was illustrated in the case of
the Israelites. Numbers 25:1-9, “And the people began to commit
whoredom with the daughters of Moab; and they called the people unto
the sacrifices of their gods.... And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor.”
This was a God of the Moabites, who was worshipped by the
prostitution of virgins. Idolatry and fornication were in that case
inseparable. In Corinth the principal temple was dedicated to Venus, and
the homage paid to her was almost as corrupt as that rendered to
Baal-peor. How could the Corinthians escape this evil if they allowed
themselves to attend the sacrificial feasts within her temple — under the
pretense that an idol is nothing?

And were slain in one day three and twenty thousand. In the Hebrew
Scriptures, the Septuagint, by Philo, Josephus and the Rabbis, the number
is given as twenty-four thousand. Both statements are equally correct.
Nothing depended on the precise number. Any number between the two
amounts may, according to common usage, be stated roundly as either the
one or the other. The infallibility of the sacred writers consists in their
saying precisely what the Spirit of God designed they should say; and the
Spirit designed that they should speak after the manner of men — and call
the heavens solid and the earth flat, and use round numbers, without
intending to be mathematically exact in common speech. The Bible,
although perfectly divine, because the product of the Spirit of God, is
perfectly human. The sacred writers spoke and wrote precisely as other
men in their circumstances would have spoken and written, and yet under
such an influence as to make every thing they said correspond infallibly
with the mind of the Spirit. When the hand of a master touches the organ
we have one sound, and when he touches the harp we have another. So
when the Spirit of God inspired Isaiah we had one strain, and when he
inspired Amos, another. Moses and Paul were accustomed, like most other
men, to use round numbers; and they used them when under the influence
of inspiration just as they used other familiar forms of statement. Neither
intended to speak with numerical exactness, which the occasion did not
 201
require. What a wonderful book is the Bible, written at intervals during a
period of fifteen hundred years, when such apparitions of inaccuracy as
this must be seized upon to impeach its infallibility!

16
9. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were
destroyed of serpents.

To tempt is to try, either in the sense of attempting, or of putting to the

test, with a good or evil intent. God is said to tempt his people, when he
puts their faith and patience to the test for the sake of exercising and
strengthening those graces, Hebrews 11:17. Satan and evil men are said to
tempt others, when they put their virtue to the test with the design of
seducing them into sin, Galatians 6:1. James 1:3. Matthew 4:1, etc. Men
are said to tempt God when they put his patience, fidelity or power to the
test. Acts 5:9. Matthew 4:7. Hebrews 3:9. It was thus the Israelites
tempted him in the wilderness. They tried his forbearance, they provoked
him. The exhortation is that we should not thus tempt Christ. This
supposes that Christ has authority over us, that he is our moral governor
to whom we are responsible, and who has the power to punish those who
incur his displeasure. In other words, the passage assumes that we stand in
the relation to Christ which rational creatures can sustain to God alone.
Christ, therefore, is God. Whether the Corinthians are warned against
tempting Christ by their impatience and discontent, as the Israelites did in
the particular case here referred to; or whether they are cautioned against
putting his fidelity to the test by running unnecessarily into danger (see
Matthew 4:7), is uncertain. Probably the former.

As some of them also tempted. As Christ is mentioned in the immediate

context, it is most natural to supply the pronoun him. ‘Let us not tempt
Christ, as they tempted him. ‘This is not only the most natural
explanation, but it is sustained by a reference to v. 4, and by the analogy of
Scripture, as the Bible elsewhere teaches that the leader of the Israelites
was the Son of God. It is only on theological grounds, that is, to get rid of
the authority of the passage as a proof of our Lord’s divinity, that others
interpret the passage thus, ‘Let us not tempt Christ, as they tempted
God.’ It is only one form of the argument, however, which is thus met. For
according to this view the passage still teaches that we sustain the relation
 202
to Christ which the Israelites sustained to God. And were destroyed of
serpents. Numbers 21:6. The people provoked God by their complaints
and by their regretting their deliverance out of Egypt. “And the Lord sent
fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much
people of Israel died.” Similar judgments awaited the Corinthians if they
exhausted the forbearance of the Lord.

10. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were
destroyed of the destroyer.

To murmur is to complain in a rebellious spirit. The reference is to

Numbers 14:2, “And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and
against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God we
had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in the
wilderness.” Vs. 11, 12, “And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will
this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe the for all
the signs which I have shown among them? I will smite them with the
pestilence, etc.” V. 27, “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation
which murmur against me?... Their carcasses shall fall in the wilderness.”
Or the reference is to Numbers 16, in which the rebellion of Korah is
related, and the subsequent murmuring of the people, v. 41, in consequence
of which fourteen thousand and seven hundred were destroyed by a
plague, v. 49. In both cases the offense and punishment were the same.
Were destroyed of the destroyer, i.e. by an angel commissioned by God to
use the pestilence as an instrument of destruction. Hence sometimes the
destruction is referred to the pestilence, as in Numbers 14:14; sometimes
to the angel, as here; and sometimes both the agent and the instrument are
combined, as in 2 Samuel 24:16. See Acts 12:23.

11. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

All these happened (i.e. continued to happen) to them for ensamples.

Literally, they were types, see v. 6. They were intended as historical
pictures, to represent, as Calvin says, the effects of idolatry, fornication,
murmuring, etc. And they are written, etc. They were recorded that we
might have the benefit of these dispensations, so that we might be
 203
admonished to avoid the sins which brought such judgments upon them.
Upon whom the ends of the world (literally, of the ages) are come. That is,
upon us who live during the last ages. Duration is sometimes conceived of
as one, and is therefore expressed by the singular aijw>n; sometimes as
made up of distinct periods, and is then expressed by the plural aijw~nev.
Hence we have the expressions sunte>leia tou~ aijwn~ ov, and tw~n aijwn> wn,
Matthew 24:3. Hebrews 9:26, both signifying the completion of a given
portion of duration, considered either as one or as made up of several
periods. Sometimes these expressions refer to the close of the Jewish
dispensation, and indicate the time of Christ’s first coming; sometimes
they refer to the close of the present dispensation, and indicate the time of
his second advent. Matthew 13:39, etc. See Ephesians 1:10, and Hebrews
1:1, for equivalent forms of expression. As in Hebrews 9:26, the
completion of the ages means the end of the Jewish dispensation, so the
ends of the ages may have the same meaning here. Or what, in this case,
may be more natural, the meaning is that we are living during the last of
those periods which are allotted to the duration of the world, or of the
present order of things. One series of ages terminated with the coming of
Christ; another, which is the last, is now passing.

12. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.

This indicates the design of the apostle in referring to the events above
indicated in the history of the Israelites. There is perpetual danger of
falling. No degree of progress we may have already made, no amount of
privileges which we may have enjoyed, can justify the want of caution. Let
him that thinketh he standeth, that is, let him who thinks himself secure.
This may refer either to security of salvation, or against the power of
temptation. The two are very different, and rest generally on different
grounds. False security of salvation commonly rests on the ground of our
belonging to a privileged body (the church), or to a privileged class (the
elect). Both are equally fallacious. Neither the members of the church nor
the elect can be saved unless they persevere in holiness; and they cannot
persevere in holiness without continual watchfulness and effort. False
security as to our power to resist temptation rests on an overweening
self-confidence in our own strength. None are so liable to fall as they who,
thinking themselves strong, heedlessly run into temptation. This probably
 204
is the kind of false security against which the apostle warns the
Corinthians, as he exhorts them immediately after to avoid temptation.

13. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man; but
God (is) faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are
able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be
able to bear (it).

No temptation, i.e. no trial, whether in the form of seductions or of

afflictions, has taken you but such as is common to man; literally human,
accommodated to human strength such as men are able to bear. ‘You have
been subjected to no superhuman or extraordinary temptations. Your trials
hitherto have been moderate; and God will not suffer you to be unduly
tried.’ This is the ordinary interpretation of this passage, and one which
gives a simple and natural sense. It may, however, mean, ‘Take heed lest
ye fall. The temptations which you have hitherto experienced are moderate
compared to those to which you are hereafter to be subjected.’ In this
view, it is not so much an encouragement, as a warning that all danger was
not over. The apostle is supposed to refer to those peculiar trials which
were to attend “the last times.” As these times were at hand, the
Corinthians were in circumstances which demanded peculiar care. They
should not run into temptation, for the days were approaching when, if it
were possible, even the elect would be deceived. As, however, there is no
contrast between the present and the future intimated in the passage, the
common interpretation is the more natural one.

But God is faithful. He has promised to preserve his people, and therefore
his fidelity is concerned in not allowing them to be unduly tempted. Here,
as in 1:9, and every where else in Scripture, the security of believers is
referred neither to the strength of the principle of grace infused into them
by regeneration, nor to their own firmness, but to the fidelity of God. He
has promised that those given to the Son as his inheritance, should never
perish. They are kept, therefore, by the power of God, through faith, unto
salvation, 1 Peter 1:4. This promise of security, however, is a promise of
security from sin, and therefore those who fall into willful and habitual sin
are not the subjects of the promise. Should they fall, it is after a severe
struggle, and they are soon renewed again unto repentance. The absolute
 205
security of believers, and the necessity of constant watchfulness, are
perfectly consistent. Those whom God has promised to save, he has
promised to render watchful. Who will not suffer you to be tempted above
that you are able, i.e. able to bear. This is the proof of his fidelity. But will
with the temptation make a way of escape. This means either, that when the
temptation comes, God will make a way of escape; or, that when God
brings the temptation he will also bring the way of escape. In the latter
sense God is regarded as the author of the temptation, in the former he is
not. The latter is to be preferred on account of the su>n, with. ‘He will
make with the temptation a way of escape,’ i.e. he makes the one, he will
make the other. The apostle James indeed says, “God cannot be tempted
with evil, neither tempteth he any man,” James 1:3. To tempt there,
however, means to solicit, or attempt to seduce into sin. In that sense God
tempts no man. But he does often put their virtue to the test, as in the case
of Abraham. And in that sense he tempts or tries them. What the apostle
here says is, that when God thus tries his people it will not be beyond
their strength, and that he will always make a way of escape that they may
be able to bear it. This expresses the design of God in making a way of
escape. (The genitive tou~ du>nasqai, etc., is the genitive of design).

PROOF THAT ATTENDANCE ON SACRIFICIAL FEASTS

IN A HEATHEN TEMPLE IS IDOLATRY. VS. 14-22.

This whole discussion arose out of the question whether it was lawful to
eat the sacrifices offered to idols. Paul, while admitting that there was
nothing wrong in eating of such meat, exhorts the Corinthians to abstain
for the sake of their weaker brethren. There was another reason for this
abstinence; they might be led into idolatry. By going to the verge of the
allowable, they might be drawn into the sinful. There was great danger that
the Corinthians, convinced that an idol was nothing, might be induced to
join the sacrificial feasts within the precincts of the temples. The danger
was the greater, because such feasts, if held in a private house, lost their
religious character, and might be attended without scruple. To convince his
readers, that if the feast was held in a temple, attendance upon it was an
act of idolatry, is the object of this section. The apostle’s argument is from
analogy. Attendance on the Lord’s Supper is an act of communion with
Christ, the object of Christian worship, and with all those who unite with
 206
us in the service. From its very nature, it brings all who partake of the
bread and wine into fellowship with Christ and with one another, vs.
14-17. The same is true of Jewish sacrifices. Whoever eats of those
sacrifices, is thereby brought into communion with the object of Jewish
worship. The act is in its nature an act of worship, v. 18. The conclusion is
too plain to need being stated — those who join in the sacrificial feasts of
the heathen, join in the worship of idols. Such is the import of the act, and
no denial on the part of those who perform it can alter its nature. It is not
to be inferred from this mode of reasoning, that the objects of heathen
worship are what the heathen suppose them to be. Because Paul argued
that, as partaking of the Lord’s Supper is an act of Christian worship,
partaking of an idol-feast must be an act of heathen worship, it is not to be
inferred that he regarded Jupiter or Juno as much real beings as Christ is.
Far from it. What the heathen sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons; and
therefore, to partake of their sacrifices under circumstances which gave
religious significance to the act, brought them into communion with
demons, vs. 19, 20. The two things are incompatible. A man cannot be a
worshipper of Christ and a worshipper of demons, or in communion with
the one while in communion with the other. Going to the Lord’s table is a
renunciation of demons; and going to the table of demons is a renunciation
of Christ, v. 21. By this conduct the jealousy of the Lord would be excited
against them, as of old it was excited against the Jews who turned aside
after false gods, v. 22.

14. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Wherefore, i.e. because such severe judgments came upon the idolatrous
Israelites; because you, as well as they, are in danger of being involved in
that sin; and because your distinguished privileges can protect you neither
from the sin nor from its punishment any more than their privileges
protected them. My dearly beloved Paul addresses them in terms of
affection, although his epistle is so full of serious admonition and warning.
Flee from idolatry, i.e. avoid it by fleeing from it. This is the only safe
method of avoiding sin. Its presence is malarious. The only safety is
keeping at a distance. This includes two things; first, avoiding what is
questionable; that is, every thing which lies upon the border of what is
allowable, or which approaches the confines of sin; and secondly, avoiding
 207
the occasion and temptations to sin; keeping at a distance from every thing
which excites evil passion, or which tends to ensnare the soul.

15. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

Unto wise men; i.e. as to men of sense; men capable of seeing the force of
an argument. Paul’s appeal is not to authority, whether his own or that of
the Scriptures. The whole question was, whether a given service came
within the scriptural definition of idolatry. He was willing, as it were, to
leave the decision to themselves; and therefore said, judge ye what I say,
i.e. sit in judgment on the argument which I present. Should they differ
from the apostle, that would not alter the case. The service was idolatrous,
whatever they thought of it. But he takes this way of convincing them.

16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood
of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body
of Christ?

It is here assumed that partaking of the Lord’s Supper brings us into

communion with Christ. If this be so, partaking of the table of demons
must bring us into communion with demons. This is the apostle’s
argument. It is founded on the assumption, that a participation of the cup
is a participation of the blood of Christ; and that a participation of the
bread is a participation of the body of Christ. So far Romanists, Lutherans,
and Reformed agree in their interpretation of this important passage. They
all agree that a participation of the cup is a participation of the blood of
Christ; and that a participation of the bread, is a participation of the body
of Christ. But when it is asked, what is the nature of this participation, the
answers given are radically different. The Reformed answer, negatively,
that it is “not after a corporal or carnal manner.” That is, it is not by the
mouth, or as ordinary food is received. Affirmatively, they answer that it
is by faith, and therefore by the soul. This, of course, determines the
nature of the thing partaken of, or the sense in which the body and blood
of Christ are received. If the reception is not by the mouth, but by faith,
men the thing received is not the material body and blood, but the body
and blood as a sacrifice, i.e. their sacrificial virtue. Hence all Reformed
churches teach (and even the rubrics of the Church of England), that the
 208
body and blood of Christ are received elsewhere man at the Lord’s table,
and without the reception of the bread and wine, which in the Sacrament
are their symbols and the organs of communication, as elsewhere the word
is that organ. Another point no less clear as to the Reformed doctrine is,
that since the body and blood of Christ are received by faith, they are not
received by unbelievers.

Romanists answer the above question by saying, that the mouth is the
organ of reception; that the thing received is the real body and blood of
Christ, into the substance of which the bread and wine are changed by the
act of consecration; and consequently, that believers and unbelievers are
alike partakers. Lutherans teach, that although the bread and wine remain
unchanged, yet, as the body and blood of Christ are locally present in the
sacrament, in, with, and under the bread and wine, the organ of reception is
the mouth; the thing received is the real body and blood of Christ; and that
they are received alike or equally by believers and unbelievers; by the
latter, however, to their detriment and condemnation; by the former, to
their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. Lutherans and Romanists
further agree in teaching, that there is a reception of the body and blood of
Christ in the Lord’s Supper, which is elsewhere impossible.

These are the three great forms of doctrine which have prevailed in the
Church on this subject; and this passage is interpreted by each party in
accordance with their peculiar views. The passage decides no point of
difference. If the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation can be elsewhere
proved, then, of course, this passage must be understood in accordance
with it. And if the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation can be
established by other declarations of the Word of God, then this passage
must be explained in accordance with that doctrine. But, if it can be clearly
demonstrated from Scripture and from those laws of belief which God has
impressed upon our nature, that those doctrines are false, then the passage
must be understood as teaching a spiritual, and not a corporal participation
of Christ’s body and blood. All that the passage asserts is the fact of a
participation, the nature of that participation must be determined from
other sources.

The cup of blessing. The word (eujloge>w ), to bless, means,

 209
1. To speak well of.
2. To praise and thank; as when we bless God.
3. To confer blessings, as when God blesses us.
In virtue of the second of these meanings, the word is used interchangeably
with (eujcariste>w), to give thanks. That is, the same act is sometimes
expressed by the one word and sometimes by the other. In Matthew 26:26
and Mark 14:22, what is expressed by saying, having blessed, in Luke
22:17, 19; and 1 Corinthians 11:25, is expressed by saying, having given
thanks. And in the account of the Lord’s Supper in Matthew and Mark,
the one word is used in reference to the bread, and the other in reference to
the cup. They therefore mean the same thing, or rather express the same
act, for that act was both a benediction and thanksgiving; that is, it was an
address to God, acknowledging his mercy and imploring his blessing, and
therefore may be expressed either by the word benediction or thanksgiving.
It is not necessary to infer that in these cases (eujlogh>sav) having blessed
is used in the restricted sense of (eujcaristh>sav) having given thanks.
This cannot be the fact, because the object of (eujlogh>sav), at least in
some of these passages, is not God, but the bread or the cup. The meaning
is, ‘having blessed the bread.’ The phrase, therefore, the cup of blessing, so
far as the signification of the words is concerned, may be rendered either
— the cup of thanksgiving (the eucharistical cup), or the cup of
benediction, the consecrated cup. The latter is no doubt the true meaning,
because the explanation immediately follows, which we bless. The cup, and
not God, is blessed. To take the phrase actively, the cup which confers
blessing is not only inconsistent with usage, but incompatible with the
explanation which immediately follows. The cup of blessing is the cup
which we bless. In the Paschal service the cup was called “the cup of
blessing,” because a benediction was pronounced over it. The idea of
consecration is necessarily included. Wine, as wine, is not the sacramental
symbol of Christ’s blood, but only when solemnly consecrated for that
purpose. Even our ordinary food is said to “be sanctified by the word of
God and prayer,” 1 Timothy 4:5, because it is set apart by a religious
service to the end for which it was appointed. So the cup of blessing is the
cup which, by the benediction pronounced over it, is “set apart from a
common to a sacred use.”
 210
Which we bless. This is the explanation of the preceding clause. The cup of
blessing is the cup which we bless; which can only mean the cup on which
we implore a blessing; that is, which we pray may be blessed to the end
for which it was appointed, viz. to be to us the communion of the blood of
Christ. That is, the means of communicating to us the benefits of Christ’s
death. Just as we bless our food when we pray that God would make it the
means of nourishing our bodies. The other interpretations of this clause are
unnatural, because they require something to be supplied which is not in
the text. Thus some say the meaning is, “taking which,” or “holding which
in our hands,” or “over which,” we give thanks. All this is unnecessary, as
the words give a perfectly good sense as they stand (o{ eujlogou~men),
which (cup) we bless. This passage, therefore, seems to determine the
meaning of such passages as Matthew 26:26 and Mark 14:22, “Having
blessed (viz. the bread) he brake it.” The bread or cup was the thing
blessed. Comp. Luke 9:16, where it is said our Lord, “having taken the five
loaves and the two fishes, and having looked up to heaven, he blessed
them.” This also shows that “having given thanks” in such connections
means “having with thanksgiving implored the blessing of God.” The cup
therefore is blessed by the prayer, in which we ask that God would make
it answer the end of its appointment.

Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? That is, is it not the means
of participating of the blood of Christ? He who partakes of the cup,
partakes of Christ’s blood. This, of course, is true only of believers. Paul
is writing to believers, and assumes the presence of faith in the receiver.
Thus baptism is said to wash away sin, and the word of God is said to
sanctify, not from any virtue in them not as an external rite or as words
addressed to the outward ear; not to all indiscriminately who are baptized
or who hear the word; but as means of divine appointment, when received
by faith and attended by the working of his Spirit. The believing reception
of the cup is as certainly connected with a participation of Christ’s blood,
as the believing reception of the word is connected with an experience of
its life-giving power. The whole argument of the apostle is founded on this
idea. He wishes to prove that partaking of the sacrificial feasts of the
heathen brought men into real communion with demons, because
participation of the Lord’s supper makes us really partakers of Christ.
The word koinwni>a, communion, means participation, from the verb
 211
koinwne>w, to partake of; in Hebrews 2:14, it is said, Christ took part of
flesh and blood. Romans 15:17, the Gentiles took part in the spiritual
blessings of the Jews. Hence we have such expressions as the following:
participation of his Son, 1 Corinthians 1:9; participation of the Spirit, 2
Corinthians 13:13, Philippians 2:1; participation of the ministry, 2
Corinthians 8:4; of the gospel, Philippians 1:5; of sufferings, Philippians
3:5. Of course the nature of this participation depends on the nature of its
object. Participation of Christ is sharing in his Spirit, character, sufferings
and glory; participation of the gospel is participation of its benefits; and
thus participation of the blood of Christ is partaking of its benefits. This
passage affords not the slightest ground for the Romish or Lutheran
doctrine of a participation of the substance of Christ’s body and blood.
When in 1:9 it is said, “We are called into the fellowship or participation
of his Son,” it is not of the substance of the Godhead that we partake. And
when the Apostle John says, “We have fellowship one with another,” i.e.
we are (koinwnoi>) partners one of another, 1 John 1:7, he does not mean
that we partake of each other’s corporeal substance. To share in a sacrifice
offered in our behalf is to share in its efficacy; and as Christ’s blood means
his sacrificial blood, to partake of his blood no more means to partake of
his literal blood, than when it is said his blood cleanses from all sin, it is
meant that his literal corporeal blood has this cleansing efficacy. When we
are said to receive the sprinkling of his blood, 1 Peter 1:1, it does not mean
his literal blood.

The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
That is, by partaking of the bread we partake of the body of Christ. This
is but a repetition of the thought contained in the preceding clause. The
cup is the means of participation of his blood; the bread the means of
participation of his body. The body of Christ cannot here mean the church,
because his blood is mentioned in the same connection, and because in the
institution of the Lord’s supper the bread is the symbol of Christ’s literal,
and not of his mystical body. To partake of his body, is to partake of the
benefits of his body as broken for us. Which we break. This is in evident
allusion to the original institution of the sacrament. Our Lord “took bread,
and having given thanks, he brake it and said, Take, eat; this is my body
which is broken for you.” 1 Corinthians 11:24. The whole service,
therefore, is often called the “breaking of bread.” Acts 2:42; 20:7. The
 212
custom, therefore, of using a wafer placed unbroken in the mouth of the
communicant, leaves out an important significant element in this
sacrament.

17. For we (being) many are one bread, (and) one body: for we are all
partakers of that one bread.

Literally rendered this verse reads: Since it is one bread, we the many are
one body; for we are all partakers of one bread. We are not said to be one
bread; but we are one body because we partake of one bread. The design of
the apostle is to show that every one who comes to the Lord’s supper
enters into communion with all other communicants. They form one body
in virtue of their joint participation of Christ. This being the case, those
who attend the sacrificial feasts of the heathen form one religious body.
They are in religious communion with each other, because in communion
with the demons on whom their worship terminates. Many distinguished
commentators, however, prefer the following interpretation. “For we,
though many, are one bread (and) one body.” The participation of the
same loaf makes us one bread, and the joint participation of Christ’s body
makes us one body. This is, to say the least, an unusual and harsh figure.
Believers are never said to be one bread; and to make the ground of
comparison the fact that the loaf is the joint product of many grains of
wheat is very remote. And to say that we are literally one bread, because
by assimilation the bread passes into the composition of the bodies of all
the communicants, is to make the apostle teach modern physiology.

In the word koinwni>a communion, as used in the preceding verse, lies the
idea of joint participation. ‘The bread which we break is a joint
participation of the body of Christ; because (o[ti) it is one bread, so are we
one body.’ The thing to be proved is the union of all partakers of that one
bread. Instead of connecting this verse with the 16th, as containing a
confirmation of what is therein stated, many commentators take it as an
independent sentence introducing a passing remark. ‘The Lord’s supper
brings us into communion with Christ. Because this is the case, we are one
body and should act accordingly.’ But this not only breaks the connection,
but introduces what is not in the text. The idea is, ‘Partaking of the
sacrament is a communion, because we the many all partake of one bread.’
 213

18. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices
partakers of the altar?

Israel after the flesh, i.e. the Jews, as a nation, as distinguished from Israel
after the Spirit, or the spiritual Israel or true people of God. As Israel was
a favorite term of honor, Paul rarely uses it for the Jews as a people
without some such qualification. Comp. Romans 2:28; 9:8. Galatians 4:29;
6:16.

Are not they which eat of the sacrifices. With the Jews, as with other
nations, only a portion of most sacrifices was consumed upon the altar;
the residue was divided between the priest and the offerer. Leviticus 7:15;
8:31. Deuteronomy 12:18. To eat of the sacrifices in the way prescribed in
the Law of Moses, was to take part in the whole sacrificial service. “Thou
must eat them before the Lord thy God, in the place which the Lord my
God shall choose.” Deuteronomy 12:18. Therefore the apostle says that
those who eat of the sacrifices are partakers of the altar; that is, they are in
communion with it. They become worshippers of the God to whom the
altar is dedicated. This is the import and the effect of joining in these
sacrificial feasts. The question is not as to the intention of the actors, but
as to the import of the act, and as to the interpretation universally put
upon it. To partake of a Jewish sacrifice as a sacrifice and in a holy place,
was an act of Jewish worship. By parity of reasoning, to partake of a
heathen sacrifice as a sacrifice, and in a holy place, was of necessity an act
of heathen worship. As all who attended the Jewish sacrifices, to which
none but Jews were admitted, professed to be Jews and to be the
joint-worshippers of Jehovah, and as they could not be in communion
with the altar without being in communion with each other, therefore all
who attended the sacrificial feasts of the heathen brought themselves into
religious communion with idolaters. It need hardly be remarked that this
passage gives no ground for the opinion that the Lord’s supper is a
sacrifice. This is not the point of comparison. The apostle’s argument does
not imply that, because the Jewish and heathen feasts were sacrificial
feasts, therefore the Christian festival had the same character. The whole
stress lies on the word koinwni>a. ‘Because participation of Christian
ordinances involves communion with Christ, participation of heathen
 214
ordinances involves communion with devils.’

19. What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in
sacrifice to idols is any thing?

This is evidently intended to guard against a false inference from this mode
of reasoning. It was not to be inferred from what he had said, that he
regarded the professed objects of heathen worship as having the same
objective existence as the God whom Jews and Christians worshipped; or
that he considered the heathen sacrifices as having any inherent power.
The idol was nothing, and that which was offered to the idol was nothing.
This however does not alter the case. For although there are no such beings
as those whom the heathen conceive their gods to be, and although their
sacrifices are not what they consider them, still their worship is real
idolatry, and has a destructive influence on the soul. How this is, is
explained in the following verse.

20. But (I say), that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to
devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with
devils.

That is, ‘I do not say the gods of the heathen have a real existence, that
there are any such persons as Jupiter or Minerva; but I do say that the
heathen worship is the worship of demons.’ This verse presents two
questions for consideration. First, in what sense does Paul here use the
word daimo>nia translated devils; and secondly, in what sense can it be
truly said that the heathen worship devils.

The words dai>mwn and daimo>nion were used by the Greeks for any
deity or God, or spirit, and generally for any object of reverence or dread.
The only case in the New Testament where they have this sense is Acts
17:18, (“He seems to be a setter forth of strange gods.”) Elsewhere they
always mean fallen angels. Our translators have not adhered to the
distinction which in the New Testament is constantly made in the use of
the words dia>bolov and daimo>nion. They translate both terms by the
word devil, and hence, when the latter occurs in the plural form, they
render it devils. The former, however, is never applied in Scripture (except
 215
in its appellative sense of accuser) to any other being than Satan. He is the
Devil, and the Scriptures never speak of more than one. By devils,
therefore, in this case are to be understood demons, or the fallen angels or
evil spirits. That this is the sense in which the Greek word is to be here
taken is plain,
1. Because it is its only scriptural sense. The passage in Acts 17:18, being
the language of Athenians, proves nothing as to the usage of Jews
speaking Greek.
2. In the Septuagint we have precisely the words used by the apostle, and
in the same sense. Deuteronomy 32:17. See also Psalms 95:5, where
the Septuagint version is, o[ti pa>ntev oiJ qeoi< tw~n eqnw~n daimo>nia,
all the gods of the heathen are devils. It can hardly be doubted that the
apostle meant to use the word in its established scriptural sense.
Comp. also Revelation 9:20.
3. The classical sense of the word does not suit the context. Paul had just
said that the heathen gods were nothing; to admit now that there were
deities in the Grecian sense of the word daimo>nion would be to
contradict himself. We must understand the apostle, therefore, as
saying on the one hand, that the gods of the heathen were imaginary
beings; and on the other, that their sacrifices were really offered to evil
spirits. In what sense, however, is this true?
The heathen certainly did not intend to worship evil spirits. Nevertheless
they did it. Men of the world do not intend to serve Satan, when they
break the laws of God in the pursuit of their objects of desire. Still in so
doing they are really obeying the will of the great adversary, yielding to his
impulses, and fulfilling his designs. He is therefore said to be the God of
this world. To him all sin is an offering and an homage. We are shut up to
the necessity of worshipping God or Satan; for all refusing or neglecting to
worship the true God, or giving to any other the worship which is due to
him alone, is the worshipping of Satan and his angels. It is true therefore,
in the highest sense, that what the heathen offer they offer to devils.
Although their gods have no existence, yet there are real beings, the rulers
of the darkness of this world, wicked spirits in heavenly places (Ephesians
6:12), on whom their worship terminates.
 216
And I would not that ye have fellowship with devils. By fellowship or
communion, the apostle means here what he meant by the same term in the
preceding verses. We are said to have fellowship with those between
whom and us there are congeniality of mind, community of interest, and
friendly intercourse. In this sense we have fellowship with our fellow
Christians, with God and with his Son. And in this sense the worshippers
of idols have fellowship with evil spirits. They are united to them so as to
form one community, with a common character and a common destiny.
Into this state of fellowship they are brought by sacrificing to them; that
is, by idolatry, which is an act of apostasy from the true God, and of
association with the kingdom of darkness. It was of great importance for
the Corinthians to know that it did not depend on their intention whether
they came into communion with devils. The heathen did not intend to
worship devils, and yet they did it; what would it avail, therefore, to the
reckless Corinthians, who attended the sacrificial feasts of the heathen, to
say that they did not intend to worship idols? The question was not, what
they meant to do, but what they did; not, what their intention was, but
what was the import and effect of their conduct. A man need not intend to
burn himself when he puts his hand into the fire; or to pollute his soul
when he frequents the haunts of vice. The effect is altogether independent
of his intention. This principle applies with all its force to compliance
with the religious services of the heathen at the present day. Those who in
pagan countries join in the religious rites of the heathen, are just as much
guilty of idolatry, and are just as certainly brought into fellowship with
devils, as the nominal Christians of Corinth, who, although they knew that
an idol was nothing, and that there is but one God, yet frequented the
heathen feasts. The same principle also applies to the compliance of
Protestants in the religious observances of Papists. Whatever their
intention may be, they worship the host if they bow down to it with the
crowd who intend to adore it. By the force of the act we become one with
those in whose worship we join. We constitute with them and with the
objects of their worship one communion.

21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be
partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.
 217
The cup of the Lord is that cup which brings us into communion with the
Lord, v. 16; the cup of devils is that cup which brings us into communion
with devils. The reference is not exclusively or specially to the cup of
libation, or to the wine poured out as an offering to the gods, but to the
cup from which the guests drank at these sacrificial feasts. The whole
service had a religious character; all the provisions, the wine as well as the
meat, were blessed in the name of the idol, and thereby consecrated to him,
in a manner analogous to that in which the bread and the wine on the
Lord’s table were consecrated to him; comp. 1 Samuel 9:12, 13. The table
of the Lord is the table at which the Lord presides, and at which his people
are his guests. The table of devils is the table at which devils preside, and at
which all present are their guests. What the apostle means to say is, that
there is not merely an in congruity and inconsistency in a man’s being the
guest and friend of Christ and the guest and friend of evil spirits, but that
the thing is impossible. It is as impossible as that the same man should be
black and white, wicked and holy at the same time. In neither case is this
attendance an empty, ineffective service. A man cannot eat of the table of
demons without being brought under their power and influence; nor can we
eat of the table of the Lord, without being brought into contact with him,
either to our salvation or condemnation. If we come thoughtlessly, without
any desire after communion with Christ, we eat and drink judgment to
ourselves. But if we come with a humble desire to obey our divine master
and to seek his presence, we cannot fail to be welcomed and blessed.
Compare, in reference to this verse, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.

22. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

Jealousy is the feeling which arises from wounded love, and is the fiercest
of all human passions. It is therefore employed as an illustration of the
hatred of God towards idolatry. It is as when a bride transfers her
affections from her lawful husband, in every way worthy of her love, to
some degraded and offensive object. This illustration, feeble as it is, is the
most effective that can be borrowed from human relations, and is often
employed in Scripture to set forth the heinousness of the sin of idolatry.
Deuteronomy 32:21. Psalms 78:58 and elsewhere. Or do we provoke, i.e.
is it our object to provoke the Lord to jealousy. The Corinthians ought not
to attend these feasts unless they intended to excite against themselves in
 218
the highest measure the displeasure of the Lord. And they ought not thus
to excite his anger, unless they were stronger than he. By the Lord is to be
understood Christ, as the context requires. It was the Lord’s table that was
forsaken, and the same Lord that was provoked thereby to jealousy. Here
again, the relation in which Christians stand to Christ, is said to be
analogous to that in which the Israelites stood to Jehovah. Christ is
therefore our Jehovah. He is our husband, to whom our supreme affection
is due, and who loves us as a husband loves his wife. “Thy maker is thy
husband, Jehovah is his name,” Isaiah 54:5; see Ephesians 5:25-31.

UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS LAWFUL TO EAT

MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. VS. 23-33.

The apostle having, in the preceding paragraph, proved that eating of the
sacrifices offered to idols under circumstances which gave a religious
character to the act, was idolatry, comes to state the circumstances under
which those sacrifices might be eaten without scruple. He begins by
reverting to the general law of Christian liberty stated with the same
limitations as in ch. 6:12. The right to use things offered to idols, as well as
other things in themselves indifferent, is limited by expediency. We should
be governed in this matter by a regard to the good of others, and to our
own edification, vs. 23:24. If the meat of sacrifices be sold in the market, v.
25, or found at private tables, it may be eaten without any hesitation, v.
27. But if any one at a private table, from scruples on the subject, should
apprise us that a certain dish contained part of a sacrifice, for his sake, and
not for our own, we ought to abstain, v. 28. We should not make such a
use of our liberty as to cause our good to be evil spoken of, v. 29. The
general rule of action, not only as to meats and drinks, but as to all other
things is, first, to act with a regard to the glory of God, v. 31; and
secondly, so as to avoid giving offense (i.e. occasion for sin) to any class of
men, v. 32. In this matter Paul presents himself as an example to his
fellow-believers, v. 33.

23. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things
are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

The apostle had already, in ch. 6:12, and in ch. 8, conceded that eating of
 219
the sacrifices offered to idols, was, in itself, a matter of indifference. But
the use of things indifferent is limited by two principles; first, a regard to
the welfare of others; secondly, regard to our own welfare. The word
(sumfe>rei) is expedient expresses the one of these ideas, and
(oijkodomei~) edifieth the other. All things are not expedient or useful to
others; and all things are not edifying to ourselves. The latter phrase might
indeed have reference to others as well as to ourselves — but as contrasted
with the former clause, it appears to be used here with this restricted
application. In this view it agrees with the clause, “I will not be brought
under the power of any thing,” in 6:12.

24. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s (wealth).

That is, let every man, in the use of his liberty, have regard to the welfare
of others. The maxim is indeed general. It is not only in the use of things
indifferent, but in all other things we should act, not, in exclusive regard to
our own interests, but also with a view to the good of others. Self, in other
words, is not to be the object of our actions. The context, however, shows,
that the apostle intended the maxim to be applied to the subject under
discussion. Another’s wealth, i.e. another’s wealth or welfare, according to
the old meaning of the word wealth.

25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, (that) eat, asking no question for
conscience’ sake:

The general principle that sacrifices might be eaten under any

circumstances which deprived the act of a religious character, is here, and
in what follows, applied to particular cases. Meat, when exposed for
public sale in the market, lost its character as a sacrifice, and might be eaten
with impunity. The word ma>kellon is a Latin word which passed into
the Greek, and means a meat market.

Eat, asking no questions for conscience’ sake. This clause admits of three
interpretations.
1. It may mean, ‘When you go to the market, buy what you want, and
make no matter of conscience about the matter. You need have no
conscientious scruples, and therefore ask no questions as to whether
 220
the meat had been offered to idols or not.’ This is the simplest and
most natural interpretation. These verses contain the conclusion of the
whole discussion. An idol is nothing; the sacrifices are nothing sacred
in themselves; but as the heathen are really worshippers of evil spirits,
to join in their worship by eating their sacrifices as sacrifices, is
idolatry; but to eat them as meat is a matter of indifference; therefore
do not make it a matter of conscience. This interpretation is confirmed
by the following verse, which assigns the reason why we need have no
scruples in the case.
2. Or, the meaning may be, Ask no questions, for fear of awakening
scruples in your own mind. A man might eat with a good conscience of
meat which he knew not was a sacrifice, when he would have serious
scruples if informed that it had been offered to an idol. Therefore it
was wise, for his own sake, to ask no questions. Paul, however, would
not advise men to act blindfold. If a man thought it wrong to eat meat
offered to idols, it would be wrong for him to run the risk of doing so
by buying meat in the markets where sacrifices were exposed for sale.
3. Others say the apostle means to caution the strong against instituting
such inquiries, for fear of giving rise to scruples in others. In favor of
this view it is urged, that throughout the whole discussion the object of
the apostle is to induce the strong to respect the conscientious scruples
of the weak. And in v. 29 he says expressly, that he means the
conscience of others.
The former of these considerations has not much weight, for we have here
general directions suited to all classes. Having shown in the preceding
paragraph, that it was idolatrous to eat of these sacrifices under certain
circumstances, it was perfectly natural that he should tell both the strong
and the weak when they might be eaten without scruple. As to the second
argument, it is rather against man in favor of this interpretation. For if,
when he means the conscience of another, he expressly says so, the
inference is, that when he makes no such explanation, he means the man’s
own conscience. Besides, the following verse gives the reason why we
need not have any scruples in the case, and not why we should regard the
scruples of others.

26. For the earth (is) the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.
 221

This was the common form of acknowledgment among the Jews before
meals. It was the recognition of God as the proprietor and giver of all
things, and specially of the food provided for his children. The words are
taken from Psalms 24:1. The fullness of the earth is that by which it is
filled; all the fruits and animals with which it is replenished; which were
created by God, and therefore good. Nothing, therefore, can in itself be
polluting, if used in obedience to the design of its creation. And as the
animals offered in sacrifice were intended to be food for man, they cannot
defile those who use them for that purpose. This is the reason which the
apostle gives to show that, so far as God is concerned, the Corinthians
need entertain no scruples in eating meat that had been offered to idols. It
was a creature of God, and therefore not to be regarded as unclean. Comp.
1 Timothy 4:4, where the same doctrine is taught, and for the same
purpose.

27. If any of them that believe not bid you (to a feast), and ye be disposed to
go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience’
sake.

As the sacrifices lost their religious character when sold in the market, so
also at any private table they were to be regarded not as sacrifices, but as
ordinary food, and might be eaten without scruple. The apostle did not
prohibit the Christians from social intercourse with the heathen. If invited
to their tables, they were at liberty to go.

28. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat
not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience’ sake: for the earth (is)
the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof:

This is an exception. They might without scruple eat any thing set before
them. But if any of the guests apprised them that a particular dish
contained meat which had been offered to an idol, out of regard to the
conscientious scruples of him who made the intimation, they should
abstain. But, on the contrary, if any one. That is, any of your fellow-guests.
The only person likely to make the suggestion was a scrupulous Christian.
For his sake that showed it and for conscience’ sake; the latter clause is
 222
explanatory. ‘On account of him making the intimation, i.e. on account of
his conscience.’ Though it is right to eat, and though you know it to be
right, yet, to avoid wounding or disturbing the conscience of your weaker
brother, it is your duty to abstain. The union of the most enlightened
liberality with the humblest concession to the weakness of others,
exhibited in this whole connection, may well excite the highest admiration.
The most enlightened man of his whole generation, was the most yielding
and conciliatory in all matters of indifference.

The clause, “For the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof,” at the
end of this verse, is not found in the best manuscripts, and therefore
omitted in all the critical editions of the Greek Testament. They seem to be
here entirely out of place. In verse 26 they assign the reason why the
Corinthians might eat without scruple whatever was sold in the market.
But here they have no connection with what precedes. The fact that the
earth is the Lord’s is no reason why we should not eat of sacrificial meat
out of regard to a brother’s conscience. There is little doubt, therefore, that
it should be omitted.

29, 30. Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my
liberty judged of another (man’s) conscience? For it I by grace be a
partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

As in the preceding vs. 25, 27 the word conscience refers to one’s own
conscience, to prevent its being so understood in v. 28, Paul adds the
explanation, ‘Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other’s.’ That is,
‘I do not mean your conscience, but the conscience of the man who warned
you not to eat.’ For why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
These and the words following admit of three interpretations.
1. If connected with the preceding clause, they must give the reason why
Paul meant “the conscience of the other.”’Conscience I say, not one’s
own, but of the other; for why is my liberty (or conscience) to be
judged by another man’s conscience? if I eat with thanksgiving (and
with a good conscience, why am I blamed?’) The obvious objection to
this interpretation is, that it exalts a subordinate clause into the
principal matter. It was plain enough that Paul did not mean the man’s
own conscience, and therefore it is unnecessary to take up two verses
 223
to prove that he did not. Besides, this interpretation makes the apostle
change sides. He has from the beginning been speaking in behalf of the
weak. This interpretation makes him here speak almost in terms of
indignation in behalf of the strong, who certainly need no advocate.
They did not require to be told that their liberty was not to be
restricted by the scruples of the weak.
2. A much better sense is obtained by connecting this passage with the
28th verse. ‘Do not eat out of regard to the conscience of your brother;
for why should my (your) liberty be judged (i.e. condemned) by
another conscience; why should I be blamed for what I receive with
thanksgiving?’ That is, why should I make such a use of my liberty as
to give offense? This brings the passage into harmony with the whole
context, and connects it with the main idea of the preceding verse, and
not with an intermediate and subordinate clause. The very thing the
apostle has in view is to induce the strong to respect the scruples of
the weak. They might eat of sacrificial meat at private tables with
freedom, so far as they themselves were concerned; but why, he asks,
should they do it so as to give offense, and cause the weak to condemn
and speak evil of them.
3. This passage is by some commentators regarded as the language of an
objector, and not as that of the apostle. The strong, when told not to
eat on account of the conscience of a weak brother, might ask, ‘Why is
my liberty judged by another’s conscience — why should I be blamed
for what I receive with thanksgiving?’ (The ga>r, according to this
view, is not for, but intensive, iJnati> ga>r, why then.) This gives a very
good sense, but it is not consistent with the following verse (which is
connected with v. 30 by ou+n, and not by de> ).
Paul does not go on to answer that objection, but considers the whole
matter settled. The second interpretation is the only one consistent alike
with what precedes and with what follows. ‘Do not eat when cautioned
not to do so; for why should you so use your liberty as to incur censure?
Whether therefore you eat or drink, do all for the glory of God.’ Why is
my liberty judged (kri>netai), i.e. judged unfavorably or condemned. If I
by grace am a partaker; literally, if I partake with thanksgiving. The word
ca>riv, grace, is here used in the sense of gratia, thanks, as in the common
phrase to say grace. See Luke 6:32, 1 Timothy 1:12, etc.
 224

31. Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the

glory of God.

This may mean either, ‘Do all things with a view to the glory of God.’ Let
that be the object constantly aimed at; or, ‘Do all things in such a way that
God may be glorified.’ There is little difference between these modes of
explanation. God cannot be glorified by our conduct unless it be our object
to act for his glory. The latter interpretation is favored by a comparison
with 1 Peter 4:11, “That God in all things may be glorified.” See
Colossians 3:17. All the special directions given in the preceding
discussion are here summed up. ‘Let self be forgotten. Let your eye be
fixed on God. Let the promotion of his glory be your object in all you do.
Strive in every thing to act in such a way that men may praise that God
whom you profess to serve.’ The sins of the people of God are always
spoken of as bringing reproach on God himself. Romans 2:24. Ezekiel
36:20, 23. It is by thus having the desire to promote the glory of God as
the governing motive of our lives, that order and harmony are introduced
into all our actions. The sun is then the center of the system. Men of the
world have themselves for the end of their actions. Philosophers tell us to
make the good of others the end; and thus destroy the sentiment of
religion, by merging it into philanthropy or benevolence. The Bible tells us
to make the glory of God the end. This secures the other ends by making
them subordinate, while at the same time it exalts the soul by placing
before it an infinite personal object. There is all the difference between
making the glory of God (the personal Jehovah) the end of our actions, and
the good of the universe, or of being in general, that there is between the
love of Christ and the love of an abstract idea. The one is religion, the other
is morality.

32. Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the
church of God:

Give none offense, i.e. give no occasion to sin. An offense is something

over which then stumble. The exhortation is to avoid being the cause of sin
to others, 8, 9. Romans 14:13, 21. They were to be thus careful with
respect to all classes of men, Christians and non-Christians. The latter are
 225
divided into the two great classes, the Jews and Gentiles. The church of
God, i.e. his people. Those whom God has called out of the world to be
his peculiar possession. They are therefore distinguished as the klhtoi>,
the called, or, collectively considered, the ejkklhsi>a , the church. The first
great principle of Christian conduct is to promote the glory of God; the
second is to avoid giving offense, or causing men to sin. In other words,
love to God and love to men should govern all our conduct.

33. Even as I please all (men) in an (things), not seeking mine own profit,
but the (profit) of many, that they may be saved.

What he urged them to do, he himself did. His object was not his own
advantage, but the benefit of others. He therefore, in all things allowable,
accommodated himself to all men, that they might be saved. “I am made all
things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” 9:22.

The principle which the apostle here avows, and which he so strenuously
recommends in the preceding chapters, is one which has often been
lamentably perverted. On the plea of becoming all things to all men,
Christians are tempted into sinful conformity with the habits and
amusements of the world. On the same plea the church of Rome adopted
heathen festivals, ceremonies and rites, until the distinction between
Paganism and Christianity was little more than nominal. Heathen temples
were called churches; pagan gods were baptized as saints, and honored as
before. Modern Rome, in the apprehension of the people, is almost as
polymeistic as ancient Rome. In like manner Romish missionaries
accommodate themselves to such a degree to heathen ideas and forms, that
the difference between what they call Christianity and the religion of the
country is almost lost. Even Protestant missionaries are often perplexed
how to decide between what is to be tolerated and what prohibited of the
previous usages and ceremonies of their converts. That the principle on
which Paul and the other apostles acted in reference to this matter, is
radically different from that adopted by the church of Rome, is apparent
from their different results. Rome has become paganized. The apostle so
acted as to preserve the church from every taint of either Paganism or
Judaism. The rules which guided the apostles may be easily deduced from
the conduct and epistles of Paul.
 226
1. They accommodated themselves to Jewish or Gentile usages only in
matters of indifference.
2. They abstained from all accommodation even in things indifferent,
under circumstances which gave to those things a religious import.
They allowed sacrifices to be eaten; but eating within a temple was
forbidden.
3. They conceded when the concession was not demanded as a matter of
necessity; but refused when it was so regarded. Paul said circumcision
was nothing and uncircumcision was nothing; yet he resisted the
circumcision of Titus when it was demanded by the Judaizers.
4. The object of their concessions was not to gain there nominal converts,
nor to do away with the offense of the cross, Galatians 4:11, but to
save men. No concession therefore, whether to the manners of the
world or to the prejudices of the ignorant, can plead the sanction of
apostolic example, which has not that object honestly in view.
5. It is included in the above particulars that Paul, in becoming all things
to all men, never compromised any truth or sanctioned any error.

XI., 1. Be ye followers of me, even as I also (am) of Christ.

This verse should belong to the tenth chapter, as it is the conclusion of the
preceding discussion, and as a new subject is introduced with the following
verse. Paul had referred to his own conciliatory conduct as an example to
the Corinthians, and he exhorts them to imitate him, as he did Christ, who
is the ultimate standard.
 227

CHAPTER XI.
The impropriety of women appearing unveiled in the public assemblies,
vs. 2-16. The improper manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper which
prevailed in the Corinthian church, vs. 11-34.

ON THE IMPROPRIETY OF WOMEN

APPEARING IN PUBLIC UNVEILED, VS. 2-16.

Having corrected the more private abuses which prevailed among the
Corinthians, the apostle begins in this chapter to consider those which
relate to the mode of conducting public worship. The first of these is the
habit of women appearing in public without a veil. Dress is in a great
degree conventional. A costume which is proper in one country, would be
indecorous in another. The principle insisted upon in this paragraph is,
that women should conform in matters of dress to all those usages which
the public sentiment of the community in which they live demands. The
veil in all eastern countries was, and to a great extent still is, the symbol of
modesty and subjection. For a woman, therefore, in Corinth to discard the
veil was to renounce her claim to modesty, and to refuse to recognize her
subordination to her husband. It is on the assumption of this significancy
in the use of the veil, that the apostle’s whole argument in this paragraph
is founded. He begins by praising the Corinthians for their obedience in
general to his instructions, v. 2. He then reminds them of the divinely
constituted subordination of the woman to the man, v. 3. Consequently it
was disgraceful in the man to assume the symbol of subordination, and
disgraceful in the woman to discard it, vs. 4, 5. If the veil were discarded as
the symbol of subordination, it must also be discarded as the symbol of
modesty. An unveiled woman, therefore, in Corinth proclaimed herself as
not only insubordinate, but as immodest, v. 6. The man ought not to wear
a veil because he represents the authority of God; but the woman is the
glory of the man, v. 7. This subordination is proved by the very history of
her creation. Eve was formed out of Adam, and made for him, vs. 8, 9, and,
therefore, women should wear, especially in the religious assemblies where
angels are present, the conventional symbol of their relation, v. 10. This
 228
subordination, however, of the woman is perfectly consistent with the
essential equality and mutual dependence of the sexes. Neither is, or can
be, without the other, vs. 11, 12. The apostle next appeals to their
instinctive sense of propriety, which taught them that as it is disgraceful in
a man to appear in the costume of a woman, so it is disgraceful in a woman
to appear in the costume of a man, vs. 13-15. Finally he appeals to
authority; the custom which he censured was contrary to the universal
practice of Christians, v. 16.

2. Now I praise, you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep
the ordinances, as I delivered (them) to you.

Now I praise you. The particle (de> ) rendered now, either simply indicates
the transition to a new subject, or it is adversative. ‘Though I exhort you
to imitate me as though you were deficient, yet I praise you that you
remember me.’ The Corinthians, although backward in following the
self-denial and conciliatory conduct of the apostle, were nevertheless in
general mindful of the ordinances or rules which he had delivered to them.
The word (para>dosiv) tradition, here rendered ordinance, is used not
only for instructions orally transmitted from generation to generation, as in
Matthew 15:2, 3, 6, but for any instruction, whether relating to faith or
practice, and whether delivered orally or in writing. 2 Thessalonians 2:15;
3:6. In reference to the rule of faith it is never used in the New Testament,
except for the immediate instructions of inspired men. When used in the
modern sense of the word tradition, it is always in reference to what is
human and untrustworthy, Galatians 1:14. Colossians 2:8, and frequently
in the gospels of the traditions of the elders.

3. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the
head of the woman (is) the man; and the head of Christ (is) God.

Though the apostle praised the Corinthians for their general obedience to
his prescriptions, yet there were many things in which they were
deserving of censure. Before mentioning the thing which he intended first
to condemn, he states the principle on which that condemnation rested; so
that, by assenting to the principle, they could not fail to assent to the
conclusion to which it necessarily led. That principle is, that order and
 229
subordination pervade the whole universe, and is essential to its being. The
head of the man is Christ; the head of woman is the man; the head of
Christ is God. If this concatenation be disturbed in any of its parts, ruin
must be the result. The head is that on which the body is dependent, and
to which it is subordinate. The obvious meaning of this passage is, that the
woman is subordinate to the man, the man is subordinate to Christ and
Christ is subordinate to God. It is further evident, that this subordination
is very different in its nature in the several cases mentioned. The
subordination of the woman to the man is something entirely different
from that of the man to Christ; and that again is at an infinite degree more
complete than the subordination of Christ to God. And still further, as the
subordination of the woman to the man is perfectly consistent with their
identity as to nature, so is the subordination of Christ to God consistent
with his being of the same nature with the Father. There is nothing,
therefore, in this passage, at all inconsistent with the true and proper
divinity of our blessed Lord. For a brief statement of the scriptural
doctrine of the relation of Christ to God, see the comments on 3:23. It
need here be only further remarked, that the word Christ is the designation,
not of the Logos or second person of the Trinity as such, nor of the human
nature of Christ as such, but of the Theanthropos, the God-man. It is the
incarnate Son of God, who, in the great work of redemption, is said to be
subordinate to the Father, whose will he came into the world to do. When
Christ is said to be the head of every man, the meaning is of every believer;
because it is the relation of Christ to the church, and not to the human
family, that it is characteristically expressed by this term. He is the head of
that body which is the church, Colossians 1:18. Ephesians 1:22, 23.

4. Every man praying or prophesying, having (his) head covered,

dishonoreth his head.

Such being the order divinely established, (viz., that mentioned in v. 3,)
both men and women should act in accordance with it; the man, by having
the head uncovered, the woman by being veiled. As the apostle refers to
their appearance in public assemblies, he says, Every man praying or
prophesying i.e. officiating in public worship. Prophesying. In the
scriptural sense of the word, a prophet is one who speaks for another, as
Aaron is called the prophet, or spokesman of Moses. “Thou shalt speak
 230
unto him, and put words into his mouth,... and he shall be thy
spokesman,” Exodus 4:15, 16; or, as he is called, 7:1, thy prophet. The
prophets of God, therefore, were his spokesmen, into whose mouth the
Lord put the words which they were to utter to the people. To prophesy,
in Scripture, is accordingly, to speak under divine inspiration; not merely
to predict future events, but to deliver, as the organ of the Holy Ghost, the
messages of God to men, whether in the form of doctrine, exhortation,
consolation, or prediction. This public function, the apostle says, should
not be exercised by a man with his head covered; literally, having
something on his head downward. Among the Greeks, the priests
officiated bareheaded; the Romans with the head veiled; the Jews (at least
soon after the apostolic age) also wore the Tallis or covering for the head in
their public services. It is not to be inferred from what is here said, that the
Christian prophets (or inspired men) had introduced this custom into the
church. The thing to be corrected was, women appearing in public
assemblies unveiled. The apostle says, the veil is inconsistent with the
position of the man, but is required by that of the women. Men are
mentioned only for the sake of illustrating the principle.

Dishonoreth his head. It is doubtful whether we should read his or his own
head, (aujtou~ or auJtou~). This is a point the ancient manuscripts do not
decide, as they are not furnished with the diacritical marks. It depends on
the connection. It is also doubtful whether the apostle meant to say that he
dishonored Christ who is his head, or that he dishonored himself. The
latter, perhaps, is to be preferred,
1. Because, in the immediately preceding clause the word is used literally,
‘If he cover his head, he dishonors his head.’
2. Because, in v. 5, the woman who goes unveiled is said to dishonor her
own head, i.e. as what follows shows, herself, and not her husband.
3. It is more obviously true that a man who acts inconsistently with his
station disgraces himself, than that he disgraces him who placed him in
that station. A commanding military officer, who appears at the head
of his troops in the dress of a common soldier, instead of his official
dress, might more properly be said to dishonor himself than his
sovereign.
 231
For a freeman to appear in the distinguishing dress of a slave, was a
disgrace. So the apostle says, for a man to appear with the conventional
sign of subjection on his head, disgraced himself. If the man be intended to
represent the dominion of God, he must act accordingly, and not appear in
the dress of a woman.

5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with (her) head uncovered
dishonoreth her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Praying and prophesying were the two principal exercises in the public
worship of the early Christians. The latter term, as above stated, included
all forms of address dictated by the Holy Spirit. It was Paul’s manner to
attend to one thing at a time. He is here speaking of the propriety of
women speaking in public unveiled, and therefore he says nothing about
the propriety of their speaking in public in itself. When that subject comes
up, he expresses his judgment in the clearest terms, 14:34. In here
disapproving of the one, says Calvin, he does not approve of the other.

The veils worn by Grecian women were of different kinds. One, and
perhaps the most common, was the peplum, or mantle, which in public
was thrown over the head, and enveloped the whole person. The other was
more in the fashion of the common eastern veil which covered the face,
with the exception of the eyes. In one form or other, the custom was
universal for all respectable women to appear veiled in public. — The
apostle therefore says, that a woman who speaks in public with her head
uncovered, dishonoreth her head. Here eJauth~v is used, her own head; not
her husband, but herself. This is plain, not only from the force of the
words, but from the next clause, for that is even all one as if she were
shaven. This is the reason why she disgraces herself. She puts herself in
the same class with women whose hair has been cut off. Cutting off the
hair, which is the principal natural ornament of women, was either a sign
of grief, Deuteronomy 21:12, or a disgraceful punishment. The literal
translation of this clause is: she is one and the same thing with one who is
shaven. She assumes the characteristic mark of a disreputable woman.

6. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a
shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
 232

That is, let her act consistently. If she wishes to be regarded as a reputable
woman, let her conform to the established usage. But if she have no regard
to her reputation, let her act as other women of her class. She must
conform either to the reputable or disreputable class of her sex, for a
departure from the one is conforming to the other. These imperatives are
not to be taken as commands, but rather as expressing what consistency
would require. Shorn or shaven, the latter is the stronger term; it properly
means to cut with a razor.

7. For a man indeed ought not to cover (his) head, forasmuch as he is the
image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

The woman, and the woman only, ought to be veiled; for the man ought
not to cover his head. This does not mean, he is not bound to do it, but
should not do it. The negative belongs not to ojfei>lei, but to
katalalu>ptesqai. The reason is that he is the image and glory of God.
The only sense in which the man, in distinction from the woman, is the
image of God, is that he represents the authority of God. He is invested
with dominion. When, in Genesis 1:26, 27, it is said God created man in
his own image, the reference is as much to woman as to man; for it is
immediately added, “male and female created he them.” So far, therefore, as
the image of God consists in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, Eve as
truly, and as much as Adam, bore the likeness of her Maker. But in the
dominion with which man was invested over the earth, Adam was the
representative of God. He is the glory of God, because in him the divine
majesty is specially manifested. But the woman is the glory of the man.
That is, the woman is in this respect subordinate to the man. She is not
designed to reflect the glory of God as a ruler. She is the glory of the man.
She receives and reveals what there is of majesty in him. She always
assumes his station; becomes a queen if he is a king, and manifests to
others the wealth and honor which may belong to her husband.

8, 9. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither
was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
 233
The subordination of the woman to the man is here proved from two facts
recorded in the history of their creation. First, the woman was formed out
of the man, and derived her origin from him. He, and not she, was created
first. Secondly, she was created on his account, and not he on hers. In this
way does the New Testament constantly authenticate, not merely the
moral and religious truths of the Old Testament, but its historical facts;
and makes those facts the grounds or proofs of great moral principles. It is
impossible, therefore, for any Christian who believes in the inspiration of
the apostles to doubt the divine authority of the Old Testament
Scriptures, or to confine the inspiration of the ancient writers to their
doctrinal and preceptive statements. The whole Bible is the word of God.

10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on (her) head because
of the angels.

There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which has so much

taxed the learning and ingenuity of commentators as this. After all that has
been written, it remains just as obscure as ever. The meaning which it
naturally suggests to the most superficial reader, is regarded by the most
laborious critics as the only true one. By ejxousi>a, power, the apostle
means the sign or symbol of authority; just as Diodorus Sic., 1:47, speaks
of an image as “having three kingdoms on its head.” The apostle had
asserted and proved that the woman is subordinate to the man, and he had
assumed as granted that the veil was the conventional symbol of the man’s
authority. The inference is that the woman ought to wear the ordinary
symbol of the power of her husband. As it was proper in itself, and
demanded by the common sense of propriety, that the woman should be
veiled, it was specially proper in the worshipping assemblies, for there
they were in the presence not merely of men but of angels. It was
therefore, not only out of deference to public sentiment, but from
reverence to those higher intelligences that the woman should conform to
all the rules of decorum. This is the common and only satisfactory
interpretation of the passage. Of those who dissent from this view, some
propose various conjectural emendations of the text; others vainly
endeavor to prove that the word ejxousi>a may be made to mean a veil;
others take the word literally. And as to the last clause, instead of taking
the word angels in its ordinary sense, some say it here means the angels, or
 234
presiding officers, of the church; others, that it means messengers or spies
from the heathen who came to observe the mode in which the Christians
worshipped, and would report any thing they observed to their
disadvantage. The great majority of commentators acquiesce in the
interpretation stated above, which satisfies all the demands of the context.

11. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman
without the man, in the Lord.

That is, although there is this subordination of the woman to the man, they
are mutually dependent. The one cannot exist without the other. In the
Lord. This does not mean that the one is not in the Lord to the exclusion
of the other. The apostle is not here speaking of the spiritual equality of
the sexes. In Galatians 3:28 and elsewhere he abundantly teaches that in
Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female; that the one is as fully a
partaker of all the benefits of redemption as the other. And it is also true
that he teaches that this equality of Jews and Greeks, bond and free, before
God is perfectly consistent with the social inequalities existing in this
world. But these truths, however important, and however they distinguish
the Christian doctrine of the equality and dignity of woman from all other
forms of religious doctrine on the subject, are foreign to this connection.
The apostle’s single object is to show the true nature and limitations of the
subordination of the woman to the man. It is a real subordination, but it is
consistent with their mutual dependence; the one is not without the other.
And this mutual dependence is ejn kuri>w| , i.e. by divine appointment —
according to the will of the Lord. These words are used here, as so
frequently elsewhere, as an adverbial qualification, meaning religiously,
after a Christian manner, or divinely, i.e. by divine appointment. The same
idea is substantially expressed by those who explain the words in the Lord
as tantamount to “in Christianity;” in the sense that it is a Christian
doctrine that the man and the woman are thus mutually dependent.

12. For as the woman (is) of the man, even so (is) the man also by the
woman; but all things of God.

The one is not without the other, for as the woman was originally formed
out of the man, so the man is born of the woman. This is a proof, not of
 235
the admitted equality of the sexes in the kingdom of God, but of their
mutual dependence in the kingdom of nature. It therefore confirms the
interpretation given of the preceding verse. But all things are of God; these
subordinate relations of one creature to another are merged, as it were, in
the supreme causality of God. It matters little whether the man was of the
woman or the woman of the man, as both alike are of God; just as he
before said, it matters little whether a man were a Jew or Gentile, bond or
free, since all are alike before God.

13. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God

uncovered?

This is an appeal to their own sense of propriety. The apostle often

recognizes the intuitive judgments of the mind as authoritative. Romans
1:32; 3:8. The constitution of our nature being derived from God, the laws
which he has impressed upon it, are as much a revelation from him as any
other possible communication of his will. And to deny this, is to deny the
possibility of all knowledge. It is comely (pre>pon ejsti> ), is it becoming or
decorous?

14, 15. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair,
it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:
for (her) hair is given her for a covering.

Doth not nature itself. The word (fu>siv), nature, sometimes means
essence or substance, sometimes the laws of nature or of our natural
constitution; sometimes, the instinctive feelings or judgments which are the
effects of those laws. The form which feelings assume is necessarily
determined in a great measure by education and habit. The instinctive sense
of propriety in an eastern maiden prompts her, when surprised by
strangers, to cover her face. In an European it would not produce that
effect. In writing, therefore, to eastern females, it would be correct to ask
whether their native sense of propriety did not prompt them to cover their
heads in public. The response would infallibly be in the affrmative. It is in
this sense the word nature is commonly taken here. It may, however, mean
the laws or course of nature. Nature gives the man short hair and the
woman long hair; and therefore nature itself teaches that long hair is a
 236
disgrace to the one and an ornament to the other; for it is disgraceful in a
man to be like a woman, and in a woman to be like a man. Wearing long
hair was contrary to the custom both of the Hebrews and Greeks. The
Nazarites, as a distinction, allowed their hair to grow. Numbers 6:8; see
also Ezekiel 44:20. It was considered so much a mark of effeminacy for
men to wear long hair, that it was not only ridiculed by Juvenal, but in
after times seriously censured by church councils. To a woman, however,
in all ages and countries, long hair has been considered an ornament. It is
given to her, Paul says, as a covering, or as a natural veil; and it is a glory
to her because it is a veil. The veil itself, therefore, must be becoming and
decorous in a woman.

16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither
the churches of God.

The arguments against the custom of women appearing in public unveiled

having been presented, the apostle says, if any man, notwithstanding these
arguments, is disposed to dispute the matter, or appears to be contentious,
we have only further to say, that we (the apostles) have no such custom,
neither have the churches of God. To be contentious, i.e. disposed to
dispute for the sake of disputation. With such persons all argument is
useless. Authority is the only end of controversy with such disturbers of
the peace. The authority here adduced is that of the apostles and of the
churches. The former was decisive, because the apostles were invested
with authority not only to teach the gospel, but also to organize the
church, and to decide every thing relating to Christian ordinances and
worship. The authority of the churches, although not coercive, was yet
great. No man is justified, except on clearly scriptural grounds, and from
the necessity of obeying God rather than man, to depart from the
established usages of the church in matters of public concern.

Calvin, and many of the best modern commentators, give a different view
of this passage. They understand the apostle to say, that if any one seems
to be disputatious, neither we nor the churches are accustomed to dispute.
It is not our wont to waste words with those who wish merely to make
contention. The only reason assigned for this interpretation, is Paul’s
saying we have no such custom; which they say cannot mean the custom
 237
of women going unveiled. But why not? The apostles and the churches
constituted a whole neither the one nor the other, neither the churches nor
their infallible guides, sanctioned the usage in question. Besides, no other
custom is mentioned in the context than the one which he has been
discussing. “If any one appear contentious,” is not a custom and suggests
nothing to which the words such a custom can naturally refer.

CELEBRATION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. VS. 17-34.

This section relates to the disorders connected with the celebration of the
Lord’s supper. These disorders were of a kind which, according to our
method of celebrating that sacrament, seems almost unaccountable. It was,
however, the early custom to connect the Lord’s supper in the strict sense
of the words with an ordinary meal. As this sacrament was instituted by
our Lord at the close of the Paschal supper, so it appears to have been
customary at the beginning for the Christians to assemble for a common
meal and to connect with it the commemoration of the Redeemer’s death.
Intimations of this usage may be found in such passages as Acts 2:42.
“They continued steadfastly in the apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and
in breaking of bread, and in prayer.” In v. 46 it is said, this breaking of
bread was from house to house. In Acts 20:7, it is said, “The disciples
came together on the first day of the week to break bread,” which, from the
narrative which follows, appears to have been an ordinary meal. Whatever
may be thought of these passages, it is clear from the paragraph before us
that at Corinth at least, the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was connected
with a regular meal. This may have arisen, not so much from the original
institution of the Eucharist in connection with the Paschal supper, as from
the sacred festivals both of the Jews and Greeks. Both classes had been
accustomed to unite with their sacrifices a feast of a more or less public
character. It is also evident that, agreeably to a familiar Grecian custom, the
persons assembled brought their own provisions, which being placed on
the table formed a common stock. The rich brought plentifully, the poor
brought little or nothing. It was, however, essential to the very idea of a
Christian feast, that it should be a communion; that all the guests at the
table of their common Lord should be on the terms of equality. Instead of
this fraternal union, there were divisions among the Corinthians even at the
Lord’s table. The rich eating by themselves the provisions which they had
 238
brought, and leaving their poorer brethren mortified and hungry. It is to the
correction of these disorders that the concluding portion of this chapter is
devoted.

It was no matter of praise that the assemblies of the Corinthians made

them worse rather than better, v. 17. The prominent evil was, that there
were schisms even in their most sacred meetings; an evil necessary in the
state in which they were, and which God permitted in order that the good
might be made manifest, vs. 18, 19. The evil to which he referred was not
merely that they had degraded the Lord’s supper into an ordinary meal,
but that in that meal they were divided into parties, some eating and
drinking to excess, and others left without any thing, vs. 20, 21. This was
not only making the Lord’s supper a meal for satisfying hunger —
contrary to its original design, but a cruel perversion of a feast of love into
a means of humiliating and wounding their poorer brethren, v. 22. In order
to show how inconsistent their conduct was with the nature of the service
in which they professed to engage, the apostle recounts the original
institution of the Lord’s supper, vs. 23-25. From this account it follows,
first, that the Lord’s supper was designed not as an ordinary meal, but as a
commemoration of the death of Christ; secondly, that to participate in this
ordinance in an unworthy manner, was an offense against his body and
blood, the symbols of which were so irreverently treated; thirdly, that no
one ought to approach the Lord’s table without self-examination, in order
that with due preparation and with a proper understanding of the
ordinance, he may receive the bread and wine as the symbols of Christ’s
body and blood, vs. 26-29. In this way they would escape the judgments
which the Lord had brought upon them on account of their profanation of
his table, vs. 30-32. In conclusion, he exhorts them to use their houses for
their ordinary meals, and to make the Lord’s supper a real communion, vs.
33, 34.

17. Now in this that I declare (unto you) I praise (you) not, that ye come
together not for the better, but for the worse.

In v. 2 he said, I praise you. His praise was consistent with grave

disapprobation of many things in their condition as a church. He did not
praise them for the manner in which they conducted their public worship.
 239
Their assemblies were disgraced not only by women appearing unveiled,
contrary to the established rules of decorum, but also by the unfraternal
and irreverent manner of celebrating the Lord’s supper — and also by the
disorderly manner in which they used their spiritual gifts. These evils he
takes up in their order. Having dispatched the first, he comes now to the
second.

Now in this that I declare unto you. 17 The Greek is not in this, but this.
The passage may be rendered, Declaring this I do not applaud. To this,
however, it is objected that paragge>llein in the New Testament never
means to declare, but always to command. Hence, the better translation is,
Commanding or enjoining this I do not applaud. It is doubtful whether this
refers to what precedes or to what follows. If the former, then the sense is,
‘While I command what precedes respecting women appearing veiled, I do
not praise you, that,’ etc. If the latter, the meaning is, ‘Commanding what
follows, I do not praise,’ etc. That ye come together not for the better, but
for the worse. That is, your public assemblies are so conducted that evil
rather man good results. The censure is general, embracing all the grounds
of complaint which are specified in this and the following chapters.

18. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there
be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

For first of all, or, For in the first place. Paul often begins an enumeration
which he does not follow out. There is nothing to answer to these words in
what follows. According to one view the first censure is directed against
the divisions, and the second against their mode of celebrating the Lord’s
supper. But the only divisions which he here refers to are those connected
with their public worship, and especially with the celebration of the
sacrament. Besides, the subject of divisions was treated in the beginning of
the epistle. He is here speaking of their assemblies. The second ground of
censure is to be found in the following chapter. When ye come together in
the church. The word (ejkklhsi>a ) church never means in the New
Testament, a building. The meaning is, when ye come together in
convocation, or assemble as a church. I hear that there be divisions among
you. Literally, schisms. For the meaning of that word, see 1:10. The nature
of these schisms is described in what follows. They were cliques, not
 240
sects, but parties, separated from each other by alienation of feeling. It is
evident that the rich formed one of these parties, as distinguished from the
poor. And probably there were many other grounds of division. The
Jewish converts separated from the Gentiles; those having one gift exalted
themselves over those having another. It is not outward separation, but
inward alienation, which is here complained of. And I partly believe it. Paul
intimates that he was loath to believe all he had heard to their disadvantage
in this matter; but he was forced to believe enough to excite his serious
disapprobation.

19. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are
approved may be made manifest among you.

This is the reason why he believed what he had heard. He knew that such
things must happen, and that God had a wise purpose in permitting them;
comp. Matthew 18:7, “It must needs be that offenses come.” Evil as well
as good is included in the divine purpose. It is purposed not as evil, but for
the sake of the good which infinite wisdom evolves from it. Also heresies.
This does not mean heresies in addition to schisms, as something different
from them. But heresies as well as other evils. ‘I hear there are divisions
(sci>smata) among you, and I believe it, for such divisions (aiJre>seiv)
must occur.’ What in the one verse are called schisms, in the next are called
heresies; both words having the general sense of divisions. The nature of
these divisions is to be determined by the context. The word (ai[resiv)
heresy means literally an act of choice, then a chosen way of life, a sect or
party; not always in a bad sense, but in the sense of schools; as, “the
heresies of philosophers” means “the schools or different classes of
philosophers.” So in the New Testament it is repeatedly used of “the sect
of the Pharisees,” or “of the Saducees,” Acts 15:5; 5:17. Here and in
Galatians 5:20 it means dissension. The ecclesiastical sense of the word
heresy, is, the choice of an opinion different from that of the church, or a
doctrine contrary to Scripture. There is nothing to favor the assumption
that such is its meaning here.

That they which are approved may be made manifest. This is the end
which God has in view in permitting the occurrence of such divisions. It is,
that they which are approved (oiJ do>kimoi), the tried, those who have
 241
stood the test, and are worthy of approbation. The opposite class are
called (ajdo>kimoi) reprobate. By the prevalence of disorders and other
evils in the church, God puts his people to the test. They are tried as gold
in the furnace, and their genuineness is made to appear. It is a great
consolation to know that dissensions, whether in the church or in the state,
are not fortuitous, but are ordered by the providence of God, and are
designed, as storms, for the purpose of purification.

20. When ye come together therefore into one place, (this) is not to eat the
Lord’s supper.

Ye coming together then into one place. Verse 19 is an interruption. The

connection with v. 18 is resumed by the particle (ou+n) then. When you
assemble it is not to eat the Lord’s supper. This is not the real, though it is
your professed purpose. ‘You come together for a common, and that too, a
disorderly, unbrotherly meal.’ The words, however, admit of two other
interpretations. We may supply, as our translators have done, the word
this; ‘This is not to eat the Lord’s supper; your meal does not deserve that
sacred character.’ Or, ‘Ye cannot eat the Lord’s supper.’ The substantive
verb (e]sti) followed by an infinitive often means can; oujk e]stin eijpei~n ,
one cannot say; oujk e]sti fagei~n, one cannot eat. ‘Coming together as
you do it is impossible to celebrate the Lord’s supper.’ This gives a very
pertinent sense. The Lord’s supper is the supper instituted by the Lord,
one to which he invites the guests, and which is celebrated in
commemoration of his death. That was a very different service from the
Agapae, or love feasts to which each one brought his contributions, during
and after which (the bread them, were subsequently prohibited by the
Council of Carthage. These Agapae were feasts to which each one brought
his contributions, during and after which (the head during, and the cup
after) the consecrated elements were distributed. See Augusti’s Antiquities
of the Christian Church, 1. p. 299; and Pool’s Synopsis on Matthew
26:26. Coleman’s Ancient Christianity, p. 443.

21. For in eating every one taketh before (other) his own supper: and one
is hungry, and another is drunken.
 242
For, i.e. the reason why the Corinthian suppers were not the Lord’s
supper, is (so far as here stated) that there was no communion, or eating
together. They were not all partakers of one bread, 10:17. They did not
wait for each other. Comp. v. 33. On the contrary, each one took
beforehand, i.e. before others could join with him, his own supper, i.e. that
which he had brought. The consequence was, that one was hungry; the
poor had nothing, while another was drunk. Such is the meaning of the
word. Whether the apostle intended to say that any of the Corinthians
actually became intoxicated at the table which they called the table of the
Lord, or whether he meant simply to say, that while one had more, another
had less, man enough, it is not easy to decide. As they seem to have
accommodated their service to the sacrificial feasts to which they had,
while yet heathens, been accustomed, it is the less improbable that in some
cases they were guilty of actual excess. “It is wonderful, and well nigh
portentous,” says Calvin, “that Satan could have accomplished so much in
so short a time. We may learn from this example, what is the worth of
mere antiquity; that is, what authority is due to custom unsustained by the
word of God.... Yet this is the firmest foundation of Popery: it is ancient;
it was done of old, therefore it has divine authority!” If, within twenty
years of its institution, the Corinthians turned the Lord’s supper into a
disorderly feast, although the apostles were then alive, we need not
wonder at the speedy corruption of the church after their death.

22. What! have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the
church of God, and shame them which have not? What shall I say to you?
shall I praise you in this? I praise (you) not.

The two grounds on which the apostle condemned this conduct of the
Corinthians were, first, that it was a perversion of the Lord’s supper; and
secondly, that it was disrespectful and mortifying to their poorer brethren.
It was a perversion of the Lord’s supper, because it made it an ordinary
meal designed to satisfy hunger. For that purpose they had their own
houses. The church comes together to worship God and to celebrate his
ordinances, not for the purpose of eating and drinking. It is important that
the church, as the church, should confine itself to its own appropriate
work, and not as such undertake to do what its members, as citizens or
members of families, may appropriately do. The church does not come
 243
together to do what can better be done at home. Or despise ye the church
of God? This was the second ground of condemnation. Their conduct
evinced contempt of their brethren. They treated them as unfit to eat with
them. Yet the poor were constituent members of the church of God. They
were his people; those whom he had chosen, whom he had made kings and
priests unto himself. These persons, thus highly honored of God, the
richer Corinthians treated with contempt; and that too at the Lord’s table,
where all external distinctions are done away, and the master is not a hair’s
breadth above his slave. And shame those who have not. To shame, i.e. to
mortify and humble, by rendering conscious of inferiority. Those who have
not may mean, either those who have not houses to eat or drink in, or
simply the poor. Those who have, are the rich; those who have not, are the
poor. The latter interpretation is not only consistent with the Greek idiom,
but gives a better sense. Even the poorer members of the church did not,
and ought not, come to the Lord’s table for the sake of food. Much as Paul
was disposed to praise the Corinthians, in this matter he could not praise
them.

23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,
That the Lord Jesus, the (same) night in which he was betrayed, took
bread:

‘I cannot praise you, for your manner of celebrating the Lord’s supper is
utterly inconsistent with its original institution.’ They were the more
inexcusable in departing from the original mode of celebrating this
ordinance, first, because the account of its original institution had been
received by Paul from the Lord himself; and secondly, because he had
delivered it to them. Their sin was therefore one of irreverent disobedience,
without the excuse of ignorance. For I have received of the Lord. Paul
asserts that he received from the Lord the account here given. The whole
context shows that he intends to claim for this narrative the direct
authority of the Lord himself. As with regard to his doctrines generally, so
with regard to the institution and design of this ordinance, he disclaims all
indebtedness to tradition or to the instructions of men, and asserts the fact
of a direct revelation to himself. Of the gospel he says, “I neither received
it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ,”
Galatians 1:12. To this interpretation, however, it is objected,
 244
1. That he uses the preposition ajpo>, which properly expresses a mediate
derivation (i.e. through the instrumentality of others), and not para>,
which would imply a direct communication. This objection supposes a
refinement in the use of the Greek particles, which is not consistent
with the character of the Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle
John says: “This is the message which we have heard of him (ajp’
aujtou~),” 1 John 1:5, which certainly does not refer to an indirect
communication received through others. In this place ajpo< tou~ kuri>ou,
from the Lord, is evidently opposed to ajp’ ajnqrw>pwn, from men. He
received his knowledge from the Lord and not from men. Comp.
Galatians 1:12. So in Galatians 1:1, he says he was an apostle not by
men (oujk ajp’ ajnqrw>pwn), but by Jesus Christ (dia< ’Ihsou~
Cristou~). Must it be inferred from this latter expression that Christ
was only the medium of Paul’s call to the apostleship, because dia>
expresses the instrumental cause? This would be as reasonable as to
infer from the use of ajpo> in the text, that the knowledge of Paul was
derived indirectly from the Lord. The apostle however says in
Galatians 1:1, that he received his apostleship, not only through Jesus
Christ, but also through God the Father; must this also mean through
the instrumentality of God? is God the Father a mere instrument? No
writer uses language with such strict grammatical accuracy as this
objection supposes; much less did Jews writing Greek. It is of course
important to adhere as far as possible to the exact meaning of the
words; but to sacrifice the sense and obvious intent of the writer to
such niceties is unreasonable. The use of ajpo> in this case, probably
arose from the desire to avoid the triple repetition of para>;
pare>labon, para>, pare>dwka.
2. It is objected that, as the Lord’s supper had been celebrated without
interruption from the time of its institution, the facts concerning it
must have been universally known, and therefore needed no direct
revelation. The same objection might be made to a special revelation of
the gospel to Paul. Why might he not have been allowed to learn it
from the other apostles? Besides, Paul, as he shows in the first and
second chapters of his epistle to the Galatians, had no communication
with the other apostles for three years after his conversion.
3. It is objected that ideas and truths may be communicated by visions
 245
and inward influences, but not historical facts. Then a large part of the
prophecies of the Old Testament must be fabulous.
The evidence is so strong from the context, that Paul claims independent
authority for what he here says, that many who bow to the force of the
Greek preposition, say that the account received by Paul from Christ
through others, was authenticated to him by an inward revelation. But this
is not what he says. He says he received it from Christ, which, in the
connection, can only mean that he received it directly from Christ; for his
object is to give authority to his account of the ordinance. It was not only
of importance for the Corinthians, but for the whole church, to be assured
that this account of the Lord’s supper, was communicated immediately by
Christ to the apostle. It shows the importance which our Lord attributes
to this ordinance.

The account which Paul received was, That the same night in which he was
betrayed, i.e. while he was being betrayed — while the traitorous scheme
was in progress. Under these affecting circumstances the ordinance was
instituted. This fact, which Christ saw fit to reveal to Paul, must be of
permanent interest to his people. It is not a matter of indifference, that this
sacred rite was instituted on the last night of our Redeemer’s life, and
when he knew what the morrow was to bring forth. This fact gives a
peculiar solemnity and interest to the institution. Romanists, in answer to
the objections made by Protestants to the mass, that it is a departure from
the original mode of celebrating the Lord’s supper, say that if the example
of Christ be obligatory, we should celebrate the ordinance at night, after a
meal, and at a table covered with provisions, etc. Protestants, however, do
not hold that the church in all ages is bound to do whatever Christ and the
apostles did, but only what they designed should be afterwards done. It is
not apostolic example which is obligatory, but apostolic precept, whether
expressed in words or in examples declared or evinced to be preceptive.
The example of Christ in celebrating the Lord’s supper is binding as to
every thing which enters into the nature and significancy of the institution;
for those are the very things which we are commanded to do. They
constitute the ordinance.

Took bread. Matthew 26:26, it is said, “as they were eating,” i.e. during
the repast, “Jesus took bread,” that is, he took of the bread lying on the
 246
table; and as it was at the time of the Passover, there is no doubt that the
bread used was unleavened. It was the thin Passover bread of the Jews.
But as no part of the significancy of the rite depends on the kind of bread
used, as there is no precept on the subject, and as the apostles
subsequently in the celebration of the ordinance used ordinary bread, it is
evidently a matter of indifference what kind of bread is used. It was
however for a long time a subject of bitter controversy. At first the Latins
and Greeks used leavened bread; when the Latins introduced the
unleavened wafer from superstitious fear of any of the fragments being
dropped, the Greeks retained the use of fermented bread, and accused the
Latins of Judaizing. Romanists and Lutherans use unleavened wafers;
Protestants generally ordinary bread.

24. And when he had given thanks, he brake (it), and said, Take, eat; this
is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Having given thanks. In Matthew 26:26, and Mark 14:22, it is, “Having
blessed it” In Luke 22:19, it is as here. The two expressions mean the same
thing. Both express the act of consecration, by a grateful acknowledgment
of God’s mercy and invocation of his blessing. See the remarks on 10:16.
He brake it. This circumstance is included in all the accounts; in those of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as in Paul’s. This is one of the
significant parts of the service, and ought not to be omitted as is done by
Romanists, by the Greek church and by Lutherans. And said. The words
uttered by our blessed Lord at this moment are differently reported by the
different evangelists. In Matthew 26:26, it is, “Take, eat.” In Mark 14:22,
the latter word (according to the best authorities) is omitted. In Luke
22:19, both are omitted. Here, although both are found in the common text,
yet, as they are wanting in the oldest MSS., they should probably be
omitted; so that Paul’s account agrees as to this point with that of Luke.
The proper inference from this diversity is, that the words were uttered by
our Lord; but as the ideas which they express were sufficiently indicated
by the gesture of reaching the bread to his disciples, they were omitted by
some of the narrators as unnecessary. The idea, whether expressed by
words or gesture, is however of importance. The bread was to be taken and
eaten. — There must be a distribution of the elements to those
participating in the service. Otherwise it is not a communion. This
 247
distribution is omitted by Romanists in the ordinary celebration of the
Mass. The priest alone eats the consecrated wafer. The next words, this is
my body, are found in all the accounts. Probably the history of the world
does not furnish a parallel to the controversies occasioned by these simple
words. The ordinary and natural interpretation of them is, that the
pronoun this refers to the bread. ‘This bread which I hold in my hand, and
which I give to you, is my body.’ That is, is the symbol of my body;
precisely as we say of a statue, it is the person which it represents; or as
the Scriptures say that the sign is the thing of which it is the symbol,
Ezekiel 5:4, 5. Galatians 4:24; or as our Savior says, I am the vine, ye are
the branches. I am the door; or as in the preceding chapter it was said,
“that rock was Christ;” or as in John 1:32, the dove is said to be the Holy
Ghost; or as baptism is said to be regeneration. This is a usage so familiar
to all languages that no one disputes that the words in question will bear
this interpretation. That they must have this meaning, would seem to be
plain,
1. From the impossibility of the bread in Christ’s hand being his literal
body then seated at the table; and the wine the blood men flowing in
his veins.
2. From the still more obvious impossibility of taking the words “this
cup is the New Testament” in a literal sense. In Matthew 26:28 it is
said, “this (cup) is my blood.” But Romanists do not hold to a
transubstantiation of the cup, but only of the wine. But if the words
are to be taken literally, they necessitated the belief of the one as well
as of the other.
3. From the utter subversion of all the rules of evidence and laws of belief
necessarily involved in the assumption that the bread in the Lord’s
supper is literally the crucified body of Christ.
4. From the infidelity on the one hand, and the superstitious idolatry on
the other, which are the unavoidable consequences of calling upon men
to believe so glaring a contradiction. It is only by denying all
distinction between matter and spirit, and confounding all our ideas of
substance and qualities, that we can believe that wine is blood, or bread
flesh.
 248
The Romish interpretation of these words is, that the bread is the body of
Christ, because its whole substance is changed into the substance of his
body. The Lutherans say, It is his body, because his body is locally
present in and with the bread. Calvin says, It is his body in the same sense
that the dove (John 1:32) was the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost appeared
under the form of a dove, which was the pledge of his presence. So the
bread is the symbol of Christ’s body, because with the one we receive the
other. What is received, however, and what Calvin calls Christ’s body, and
sometimes the substance of his body, is not the body itself, which, he
admits, is in heaven only, but a life-giving power (vim vivificam) which
flows to us from the glorified body of our Lord. The only presence of
Christ’s body in the sacrament admitted by Calvin was this presence of
power. 18 The Reformed churches teach that the bread is called the body
of Christ in the same sense that the cup is called the new covenant. He
who in faith receives the cup, receives the covenant of which it was the
pledge; and he who receives in faith in the bread receives the benefits of
Christ’s body as broken for sin. The one is the symbol and pledge of the
other.

Broken for you. In Luke it is, given for you. In Matthew and Mark these
words are omitted. In some manuscripts 19 the word (klw>menon), broken,
is wanting in this passage; so that it would read simply for you, leaving the
participle to be supplied from the context. Broken or given for you means
slain, or given unto death for you. The sacrificial character of the death of
Christ enters essentially into the nature of this ordinance. It is the
commemoration of his death, not as a teacher, or a benefactor, but as a
sacrifice; so that if this idea be kept out of view the sacrament loses all its
significance and power.

This do in remembrance of me. These words are not found in Matthew or

Mark. They occur in Luke 22:19, as they do here. This do, i.e. ‘Do what I
have just done; take bread, consecrate it, break it, distribute and eat it. In
remembrance of me, i.e. that I may be remembered as he who died for your
sins. This is the specific, definite object of the Lord’s Supper, to which all
other ends must be subordinate, because this alone is stated in the words
of institution. It is of course involved in this, that we profess faith in him
as the sacrifice for our sins; that we receive him as such; that we
 249
acknowledge the obligations which rest upon us as those who have been
redeemed by his blood; and that we recognize ourselves as constituent
members of his church and all believers as our brethren. We are thus, as
taught in the preceding chapter, brought into a real communion with Christ
and with all his people by the believing participation of this ordinance.

25. After the same manner also (he took) the cup, when he had supped,
saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye
drink (it), in remembrance of me.

This second part of the service is introduced by Luke with the same words
which are here used, though our translators there render them Likewise
also the cup, after supper. This latter version is the literal and simple
rendering of the original. In Matthew and Mark it is said, “Having taken
the cup, and having given thanks.” This explains what Paul and Luke mean
by likewise, or after the same manner. They intend to say that Christ did
with the cup what he had done with the bread, i.e. he took it, and
pronounced over it the eucharistical benediction, i.e. a blessing connected
with thanksgiving. In this particular there is a slight departure in our mode
of administering this ordinance, from the example of Christ. With us there
is generally but one eucharistical blessing at the introduction of the service,
having reference both to the bread and to the cup. Whereas it seems that
our Lord blessed the bread, and having broken, distributed it to his
disciples; and then took the cup, and having blessed it, gave it to them to
drink. After supper, i.e. after the conclusion of the paschal supper.

Saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood. The same words occur
in Luke 22:20. In Matthew and Mark the corresponding expression is,
“This is my blood of the New Testament.” The sense must be the same.
“The blood of the covenant” means here, as in Exodus 24:8, the blood by
which the covenant was ratified and its blessings secured. The passage
referred to in Exodus shows the manner in which covenants were anciently
ratified in the East. A victim was slain and the blood sprinkled upon the
contracting parties, by which they were solemnly bound to their mutual
engagements. The word diaqh>kh so constantly, after the Vulgate, rendered
Testament by our translators, always in the New Testament means a
covenant, unless Hebrews 9:16 be an exception. Here that sense is required
 250
by the context, as a covenant and not a testament was ratified by blood.
This covenant is called new in reference to the Mosaic covenant. The latter
was ratified by the blood of animals; the new, by the blood of the eternal
Son of God; the one in itself could secure only temporal benefits and the
remission of ceremonial offenses; the other secures eternal redemption, and
the remission of sin in the sight of God. As the Hebrews entered into
covenant with God when the blood of the heifer was sprinkled upon them
and thereby bound themselves to be obedient to the Mosaic institutions,
and as God thereby graciously bound himself to confer upon them all its
promised blessings on condition of that obedience; so, in the Lord’s
supper, those who receive the cup profess to embrace the covenant of
grace, and bind themselves to obedience to the gospel; and God binds
himself to confer on them all the benefits of redemption. In receiving the
cup, therefore, they receive the pledge of their salvation. The death of
Christ, which is so often compared to a sin-offering, is here, as well as in
the Epistle to the Hebrews, compared to a federal sacrifice. The two,
however, do not differ. The death of Christ is the latter only in virtue of its
being the former. It ratifies the covenant of grace and secures its benefits,
only because it was a propitiation, i.e. because it was a satisfaction to
divine justice, as is so clearly taught in Romans 3:25, 26. Every time,
therefore, the consecrated wine touches the believer’s lips, he receives
anew the application of the blood of Christ for the remission of his sins
and his reconciliation with God. If the Bible says we are sprinkled with the
blood of Jesus, 1 Peter 1:2, why may we not be said to receive his blood?
If the former expression means the application of the benefits of his
sacrificial death, why may not the latter mean the reception of those
benefits? Here, as elsewhere, the difficulty is the want of faith. He who by
faith appropriates a divine promise recorded in the word, receives the
blessing promised; and he who in the exercise of faith receives the
sacramental cup receives the benefits of the covenant of which that cup is
the symbol and the pledge. But what is faith? or rather, what is it that we
are required to believe, in order to experience all this?
1. We must believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he loved us and
gave himself for us.
2. That his blood cleanses from all sin.
3. That in the sacrament he offers us, with the symbols of his broken
 251
body and his shed blood, the benefits of his death; and that he will
certainly convey those benefits to all those who hold out even a
trembling hand to receive them.

In Luke, after the words in my blood, it is added, which is shed for you. In
Mark the explanation is, which is shed for many; and in Matthew, still
more fully, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. These are
different forms of expressing the sacrificial character of the death of Christ.
Though it was the blood of the covenant, yet it was at the same time shed
for many, not merely for their benefit in the general, but for the specific
object of securing the remission of sins. It was, therefore, truly a
sin-offering. Thus does Scripture explain Scripture. What is said concisely
in one place is more fully and clearly stated in another.

This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. These words do not
occur in Luke. In Matthew the words are, Drink ye all of it. Mark says,
They all drank of it. In each account the fact is made plain that the cup was
distributed to all at the table and that all drank of it. The words This do are
to be understood here as in v. 25, ‘Do what I have done, i.e. bless the cup
and distribute it among yourselves.’ As oft as ye drink of it. This does not
mean that every time Christians drank wine together they should do it in
commemoration of Christ’s death; but, ‘as often as this ordinance is
celebrated, do what I have done, to commemorate my death.’ The Lord’s
Supper is a commemoration of Christ’s death, not only because it was
designed for that purpose, but also because the bread and wine are the
significant symbols of his broken body and shed blood. In this ordinance
therefore Christ is set forth as a sacrifice which at once makes expiation for
sin and ratifies the covenant of grace.

26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the
Lord’s death till he come.

What Paul had received of the Lord is recorded in the preceding verses.
Here and in what follows we have his own inferences from the account
which the Lord had given him. The first of those inferences is, that the
Lord’s supper is, and was designed to be, a proclamation of the death of
Christ to continue until his second advent. Those who come to it,
 252
therefore, should come, not to satisfy hunger, nor for the gratification of
social feelings, but for the definite purpose of bearing their testimony to
the great fact of redemption, and to contribute their portion of influence to
the preservation and propagation of the knowledge of that fact. For
indicates the connection with what precedes. ‘It is a commemoration of his
death, for it is in its very nature a proclamation of that great fact.’ And it
was not a temporary institution, but one designed to continue until the
consummation. As the Passover was a perpetual commemoration of the
deliverance out of Egypt, and a prediction of the coming and death of the
Lamb of God, who was to bear the sins of the world; so the Lord’s supper
is at once the commemoration of the death of Christ and a pledge of his
coming the second time without sin unto salvation.

27. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink (this) cup of the
Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

This is the second inference. Wherefore, i.e. so that, hence it follows. If the
Lord’s Supper be in its very nature a proclamation of the death of Christ,
it follows that those who attend upon it as an ordinary meal, or in an
irreverent manner, or for any other purpose than that for which it was
appointed, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. That is, they
contract guilt in reference to the body and blood of Christ. See James 2:10.
The man who tramples on the flag of his country, insults his country; and
he who treats with indignity the representative of a sovereign, thereby
offends the sovereign himself. In like manner, he who treats the symbols of
Christ’s body and blood irreverently is guilty of irreverence towards
Christ. The idea that he is so evil that he would have joined in the
crucifixion of the Lord; or that he makes himself a partaker of the guilt of
his death, does not lie in the words. It is also obvious that this passage
affords no ground for either the Romish or Lutheran view of the local
presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament, since an insult to the
appointed symbol of his body, is an insult to his body itself. Neither does
the passage countenance the doctrine held by both Romanists and
Lutherans, that unbelievers receive the body and blood of Christ. If they
do not receive them, it is asked, how can they be guilty in respect to them?
By treating them, in their appointed symbols, irreverently. It is not
necessary, therefore, in order to the guilt here spoken of, either that the
 253
body of Christ should be locally present, or that the unworthy receiver be
a partaker of that body, which is received by faith alone. In our version it
is, “whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup;” in the Greek it is
(h]) or, not and. And this the sense requires. The irreverent use of either
the bread or the cup in this ordinance involves the guilt of which the
apostle here speaks; because the indignity extends to the whole service.

But what is it to eat and drink unworthily? It is not to eat and drink with a
consciousness of unworthiness, for such a sense of ill-desert is one of the
conditions of acceptable communion. It is not the whole, but the
consciously sick whom Christ came to heal. Nor is it to eat with doubt and
misgiving of our being duly prepared to come to the Lord’s table; for such
doubts, although an evidence of a weak faith, indicate a better state of mind
than indifference or false security. In the Larger Catechism of our Church,
in answer to the question, whether one who doubts of his being in Christ,
may come to the Lord’s supper, it is said, “One who doubteth of his being
in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper,
may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and
in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of
the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart
from iniquity; in which case (because promises are made, and this
sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting
Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts
resolved; and so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s supper,
that he may be further strengthened.” To eat or drink unworthily is in
general to come to the Lord’s table in a careless, irreverent spirit, without
the intention or desire to commemorate the death of Christ as the sacrifice
for our sins, and without the purpose of complying with the engagements
which we thereby assume. The way in which the Corinthians ate
unworthily was, that they treated the Lord’s table as though it were their
own; making no distinction between the Lord’s supper and an ordinary
meal; coming together to satisfy their hunger, and not to feed on the body
and blood of Christ; and refusing to commune with their poorer brethren.
This, though one, is not the only way in which men may eat and drink
unworthily. All that is necessary to observe is, that the warning is directly
against the careless and profane, and not against the timid and the
doubting.
 254

28. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of (that) bread, and
drink of (that) cup.

This is the third inference from the account of the Lord’s supper which
Paul had received. It requires self-examination and preparation in order to
being worthily received. If it be a commemoration of Christ’s death; if we
are therein “made partakers of his body and blood;” if we contract such
guilt by eating and drinking unworthily; in other words, if such blessings
attend the worthy receiving, and such guilt the unworthy receiving of this
ordinance, it is evident that we should not approach it without due
self-inspection and preparation. Let a man examine himself. In other
words, let him ascertain whether he has correct views of the nature and
design of the ordinance, and whether he has the proper state of mind. That
is, whether he desires thankfully to commemorate the Lord’s death,
renewedly to partake of the benefits of that death as a sacrifice for his sins,
publicly to accept the covenant of grace with all its promises and
obligations, and to signify his fellowship with his brethren as joint
members with himself of the body of Christ. And so let him eat. That is,
after this self-examination, and, as is evidently implied, after having
ascertained that he possesses the due preparation. It is not essential,
however, to this preparation, as before remarked, that we should be
assured of our good estate, but simply that we have the intelligent desire to
do what Christ requires of us when we come to his table. If we come
humbly seeking him, he will bid us welcome, and feed us with that bread
whereof if a man eat, he shall never die.

29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, 20 eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

This verse assigns the reason why self-examination in preparation for the
Lord’s supper is necessary. It is because he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily (in the sense before explained), eateth and drinketh judgment to
himself. That is, he incurs the manifestation of God’s displeasure by the
act of eating. The word damnation, used in our version, originally and
properly means simply condemnation, and not hopeless and final
perdition, which is its modern and popular sense. In the original the word
 255
is kri>ma without the article, and therefore simply judgment, not the
judgment. The meaning obviously is, that the unworthy eater contracts
guilt; he exposes himself to the judgments of God. What kind of judgments
the apostle had in his mind is plain from the next verse, where he refers to
sickness and death. 21 This verse is only a repetition of the sentiment
expressed in v. 27, where he who cast unworthily is said to contract guilt
in reference to the body of the Lord. Not discerning, i.e. because he does
not discern the Lord’s body. The word diakri>nw, translated to discern,
means to separate, men to cause to differ, as 4:7; and also, judge of, either
in the sense of discriminating one thing from another, or in the sense of
estimating aright. This passage may therefore mean, not discriminating the
Lord’s body, i.e. making no difference between the bread in the sacrament
and ordinary food; or, it may mean, not estimating it aright, not reverencing
it as the appointed symbol of the body of the Lord. In either case the
offense is the same. The ground of the condemnation incurred is, regarding
and treating the elements in the Lord’s supper as though there was nothing
to distinguish them from ordinary bread and wine. Here, as before, it is the
careless and profane who are warned. There is, therefore, nothing in these
passages which should surround the Lord’s table with gloom. We are not
called unto the mount covered with clouds and darkness, from which issue
the signs of wrath, but unto Mount Zion, to the abode of mercy and grace,
where all is love — the dying love of him who never breaks the bruised
reed.

30. For this cause many (are) weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

For this cause, that is, because those who partake of the Lord’s supper
unworthily incur the judgment of God; many are weak and sickly. The
distinction between these words made by commentators, is, that the
former designates those whose strength decays as it were of itself, and the
latter, those rendered infirm by sickness. The latter term is the stronger of
the two. And many sleep, i.e. have already died. As there is nothing in the
context to intimate that these terms are used figuratively of moral
infirmities and spiritual declension, they should be taken in their literal
sense. Paul knew that the prevailing sickness and frequent deaths among
the Christians of Corinth were a judgment from God on account of the
irreverent manner in which they had celebrated the Lord’s supper.
 256

31. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

For, i.e. these afflictions are judgments from God, because of your sin in
this matter; for, if we judge ourselves, that is, if we examine ourselves (see
v. 28) and prepare ourselves for the Lord’s table, we should not be judged,
i.e. thus afflicted. It is because we do not sit in judgment on ourselves, that
God judges us.

32. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should
not be condemned with the world.

These judgments were chastisements designed for the benefit of those who
suffered, to bring them to repentance, that they might not be finally
condemned with the world; that is, with unbelievers. The world often
means mankind as distinguished from the church, or those chosen out of
the world. “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world,”
John 17:16. What Paul says of the design of these judgments, proves that
even the extreme irreverence with which he charges the Corinthians in
reference to the Lord’s supper, was not an unpardonable sin.

33, 34. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for
another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not
together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

The two great evils connected with the observance of the Lord’s supper at
Corinth were, first, that it was not a communion, one took his supper
before another, v. 21; and secondly, that they came to the Lord’s table to
satisfy their hunger. That is, they made it an ordinary meal. They thus
sinned against their brethren, v. 22, and they sinned against Christ, v. 27.
In the conclusion, therefore, of the whole discussion, he exhorts them to
correct these evils; to wait for each other, and make it a joint service; and
to satisfy their hunger at home, and come together only to commemorate
the Lord’s death. Mildly as this exhortation is expressed, it is enforced by
the solemn warning already given, that ye come not together to
condemnation, that is, so as to incur the displeasure of God. The rest will I
set in order when (whenever wJv a]n) I may come. There were, it seems,
 257
other irregularities of less importance than those above mentioned, which
the apostle leaves to be corrected until he should again visit Corinth. The
epistles of Paul abound in evidence of the plenary authority exercised by
the apostles over the churches. The word diata>ssw, to set in order,
implies authoritative direction; see 7:17; 16:1. Matthew 11:1. The apostles
were rendered infallible, as the representatives of Christ, to teach his
doctrines, to organize the church and determine its form of government,
and to regulate its worship. And what they ordained has binding force on
the church to this day. What Paul teaches in this chapter concerning the
nature and mode of celebrating the Lord’s supper, has determined the
views and practice of evangelical Christians in every part of the world. It is
not at all wonderful, considering that the festivals of the Jews, and
especially the Passover, as well as the sacrificial feasts of the Gentiles,
were social repasts, and especially considering that our Lord instituted this
ordinance in connection with the Paschal supper, that the early Christians
should have so generally combined it with a social meal; or that this
custom should have continued so long in the church. Nor is it a matter of
surprise, that the social element in this combined service should so often
have prevailed over the religious one. That this was to a lamentable degree
the case in Corinth, is evident from this chapter; and it is probable from
Jude 12, that the evil was by no means confined to Corinth. That apostle,
speaking of certain sensual persons, says, “These are spots in your feasts
of charity, when they feast with you without fear.” Hence the unspeakable
importance of the instructions and directions given by St. Paul, which are
specially designed to separate the Lord’s supper as a religious rite from the
social element with which it was combined. The apostle urges that neither
the sacrament itself, nor any feast with which it might be connected,
should be regarded as the occasion of satisfying hunger. The communion of
saints and the commemoration of the death of Christ as a sacrifice for our
sins, are the only legitimate objects which could be contemplated in the
service. And by exhibiting the intimate fellowship with the Lord involved
in the right use of this ordinance, and the dreadful consequences of
unworthily participating, he has raised it to a purely religious service, and
made it the highest act of worship. From one extreme the church gradually
passed over to the opposite. From regarding it as it had been in Corinth,
little more than an ordinary meal, it came to be regarded as an awful
mystery, a sacrifice which the people were to witness, and in which they
 258
were to adore the Redeemer as locally present in his corporeal nature under
the form of a wafer! So strong a hold had this unscriptural view taken of
the mind of the church, that Luther found it impossible to emancipate
himself from the belief of the local presence of Christ’s real body in this
sacrament. And even Calvin could not divest himself of the conviction, not
only of its supernatural character, which all admit who regard it as a means
of grace, but also of its being truly miraculous. It was only after a severe
struggle that the Reformed church got back to the simple, yet sublime view
of the ordinance presented by the apostle Paul. The danger has often since
been that the church should go back to the Corinthian extreme, and look
upon the Lord’s supper as a simple commemoration, involving nothing
supernatural either in its nature or effects. Our only safety is in adhering
strictly to the teachings of the Scriptures. The apostle tells us, on the
authority of a direct revelation from the Lord himself, that while the
ordinance is designed as a memorial of Christ’s death, it involves a
participation of his body and blood, not of their material substance, but of
their sacrificial efficacy, so that, “although the body and blood of Christ
are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine
in the Lord’s supper; and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the
receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their
outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of
the Lord’s supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not
after a corporal or carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really,
while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified and
all the benefits of his death.” Larger Catechism.
 259

CHAPTER XII.
OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS. VS. 1-31.

The ancient prophets had clearly predicted that the Messianic period
should be attended by a remarkable effusion of the Holy Spirit. “And it
shall come to pass in those days,” it is said in the prophecies of Joel,
“saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and
your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and
your old men shall dream dreams.” Our Lord, before his crucifixion,
promised to send the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, to instruct and
guide his church, John 14, etc. And after his resurrection he said to his
disciples, “These signs shall follow them that believe. In my name shall
they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up
serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they
shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover,” Mark 16:17, 18. And
immediately before his ascension he said to the disciples, “Ye shall be
baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence,” Acts 1:5.
Accordingly, on the day of Pentecost, these promises and prophecies were
literally fulfilled. The peculiarity of the new dispensation consisted, in the
first place, in the general diffusion of these gifts. They were not confined
to any one class of the people, but extended to all classes; male and female,
young and old; and secondly, in the wonderful diversity of these
supernatural endowments. Under circumstances so extraordinary it was
unavoidable that many disorders should arise. Some men would claim to be
the organs of the Spirit, who were deluded or impostors, some would be
dissatisfied with the gifts which they had received, and envy those whom
they regarded as more highly favored; others would be inflated, and make
an ostentatious display of their extraordinary powers; and in the public
assemblies it might be expected that the greatest confusion would arise
from so many persons being desirous to exercise their gifts at the same
time. To the correction of these evils, all of which had manifested
themselves in the church of Corinth, the apostle devotes this and the two
following chapters. It is impossible to read these chapters without being
 260
deeply impressed by the divine wisdom with which they are pervaded.
After contrasting the condition of the Corinthians, as members of that
body which was instinct with the life-giving Spirit of God, with their
former condition as the senseless worshippers of dumb idols, he, First,
lays down the criterion by which they might decide whether those who
pretended to be the organs of the Spirit were really under his influence.
How do they speak of Christ? Do they blaspheme, or do they worship
him? If they openly and sincerely recognize Jesus as the Supreme Lord,
then they are under the influence of the Holy Ghost, vs. 1-3. Secondly,
these gifts, whether viewed as graces of the Spirit, or as forms of
ministering to Christ, or the effects of God’s power, that is, whether
viewed in relation to the Spirit, to the Son, or to the Father, are but
different manifestations of the Holy Ghost dwelling in his people, and are
all intended for the edification of the church, vs. 4-7. Thirdly, he arranges
them under three heads,
1. The word of wisdom and the word of knowledge.
2. Faith, the gift of healing, the power of working miracles, prophesying,
and the discerning of spirits.
3. The gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues, vs. 8-10.
Fourthly, these gifts are not only all the fruits of the Spirit, but they
are distributed according to his sovereign will, v. 11. Fifthly, there is
therefore in this matter a striking analogy between the church and the
human body. For,
1. As the body is one organic whole, because animated by one spirit,
so the church is one because of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost as
the principle of its life.
2. As the unity of life in the body is manifested in a diversity of
organs and members; so the indwelling of the Spirit in the church is
manifested by a diversity of gifts and offices.
3. As the very idea of the body as an organization supposes this
diversity in unity, the same is true in regard to the church.
4. As in the human body the members are mutually dependent, and
no one exists for itself alone but for the body as a whole, so also in
the church there is the same dependence of its members on each
other, and their various gifts are not designed for the exclusive
 261
benefit of those who exercise them, but for the edification of the
whole church.
5. As in the body the position and function of each member are
determined not by itself, but by God, so also these spiritual gifts
are distributed according to the good pleasure of their author.
6. In the body the least attractive parts are those which are
indispensable to its existence, and so in the church it is not the
most attractive gifts which are the most useful. Sixthly, the apostle
draws from this analogy the following inferences.
1. Every one should be contented with the gift which he has
received of the Lord, just as the hand and foot are contented
with their position and office in the body.
2. There should be no exaltation of one member of the church over
others, on the ground of the supposed superiority of his gifts.
3. There should, and must be mutual sympathy between the
members of the church, as there is between the members of the
body. One cannot suffer without all the others suffering with it.
No one lives, or acts, or feels for itself alone, but each in all the
rest, vs. 12-27.
In conclusion the apostle shows that what he had said with regard to these
spiritual gifts, applies in all its force to the various offices of the church,
which are the organs through which the gifts of the Spirit are exercised, vs.
28-31.

1. Now concerning spiritual (gifts), brethren, I would not have you

ignorant.

Instead of beginning with, in the second place, in continuance of the

enumeration begun in 11:17, he passes to the second ground of censure, by
the simple now (de> ) as the particle of transition. The misuse of the
spiritual gifts, especially of the gift of tongues, was the next topic of
rebuke. Concerning spiritual, whether men or gifts, depends on the
context, as the word may be either masculine or neuter. The latter is the
more natural and common explanation, because the gifts rather than the
persons are the subject of discussion; and because in v. 31, and 14:1, the
 262
neuter form is used. I would not have you ignorant, i.e. I wish you to
understand the origin and intent of these extraordinary manifestations of
divine power, and to be able to discriminate between the true and false
claimants to the possession of them.

2. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even
as ye were led.

Here, as in Ephesians 2:11, the apostle contrasts the former with the
present condition of his readers. Formerly, they were Gentiles, now they
were Christians. Formerly, they were the worshippers and consulters of
dumb idols, now they worshipped the living and true God. Formerly, they
were swayed by a blind, unintelligent impulse, which carried them away,
they knew not why nor whither; now they were under the influence of the
Spirit of God. Their former condition is here adverted to as affording a
reason why they needed instruction on this subject. It was one on which
their previous experience gave them no information.

Ye know that 22 ye were Gentiles. This is the comprehensive statement of

their former condition. Under it are included the two particulars which
follow. First, they were addicted to the worship of dumb idols, i.e.
voiceless, comp. Habakkuk 2:18, 19, “Woe unto him that saith unto the
wood, Awake; unto the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach,” and Psalms
115:5; 135:16. To worship dumb idols, gods who could neither hear nor
save, expresses in the strongest terms at once their folly and their misery.
Secondly, they were carried away to this worship just as they were led, i.e.
they were controlled by an influence which they could not understand or
resist. Compare, as to the force of the word here used, Galatians 2:13; 2
Peter 3:17. It is often spoken of those who are led away to judgment, to
prison, or to execution. Mark 14:53. John 18:13. Matthew 27:21. Paul
means to contrast this (ajpa>gesqai) being carried away, as it were, by
force, with the (a]gesqai pneu>mati), being led by the Spirit. The one was
an irrational influence controlling the understanding and will; the other is an
influence from God, congruous to our nature, and leading to good.
 263
3. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit
of God calleth Jesus accursed: and (that) no man can say that Jesus is the
Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Wherefore, i.e. because I would not have you ignorant on this subject. The
first thing which he teaches is the criterion or test of true divine influence.
This criterion he states first negatively and then positively. The negative
statement is, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus
accursed. To speak by (or in) the Spirit, is to speak under the influence of
the Spirit, as the ancient prophets did. Matthew 22:43. Mark 12:36. No
one speaking (lalw~n, using his voice), calleth (le>gei pronounces) Jesus
to be accursed. Or, according to another reading, utters the words, “Jesus
is accursed.” By Jesus, the historical person known among men by that
name is indicated. And, therefore, Paul uses that word and not Christ,
which is a term of office. Accursed, i.e. anamema. This word properly
means something consecrated to God; and as among the Jews what was
thus consecrated could not be redeemed, but, if a living thing, must be put
to death, Leviticus 27:28, 29, hence the word was used to designate any
person or thing devoted to destruction; and then with the accessory idea of
the divine displeasure, something devoted to destruction as accursed. This
last is its uniform meaning in the New Testament. Romans 9:3. Galatians
1:8, 9; 1 Corinthians 16:22. Hence to say that Jesus is amathema, is to say
he was a malefactor, one just condemned to death. This the Jews said who
invoked his blood upon their heads. The affirmative statement is, no man
can say Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. The word ku>riov,
LORD, is that by which the word Jehovah is commonly rendered in the
Greek version of the Old Testament. To say Jesus is the Lord, therefore,
in the sense of the apostle, is to acknowledge him to be truly God. And as
the word Jesus here as before designates the historical person known by
that name, who was born of the Virgin Mary, to say that Jesus is Lord, is
to acknowledge that that person is God manifest in the flesh. In other
words, the confession includes the acknowledgment that he is truly God
and truly man. What the apostle says, is that no man can make this
acknowledgment but by the Holy Ghost. This of course does not mean
that no one can utter these words unless under special divine influence; but
it means that no one can truly believe and openly confess that Jesus is
God manifest in the flesh unless he is enlightened by the Spirit of God.
 264
This is precisely what our Lord himself said, when Peter confessed him to
be the Son of God. “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew
16:17. The same thing is also said by the apostle John. “Hereby know ye
the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh is not of God,” 1 John 4:2, 3; and in v. 15, “Whosoever
shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in
God.” To blaspheme Christ, maledicere Christo, Plin. Epist. X. 97, was
the form for renouncing Christianity before the Roman tribunals; and
saying, “I believe that Jesus is the Son of God,” Acts 8:37, was the form
of professing allegiance to Christ. Men acknowledged themselves to be
Christians, by acknowledging the divinity of Christ. These passages,
therefore, teach us first, whom we are to regard as Christians, viz., those
who acknowledge and worship Jesus of Nazareth as the true God;
secondly, that the test of the divine commission of those who assume to
be teachers of the gospel, is not external descent, or apostolic succession,
but soundness in the faith. If even an apostle or angel teach any other
gospel, we are to regard him as accursed, Galatians 1:8. And Paul tells the
Corinthians that they were to discriminate between those who were really
the organs of the Holy Ghost, and those who falsely pretended to that
office, by the same criterion. As it is unscriptural to recognize as
Christians those who deny the divinity of our Lord; so it is unscriptural
for any man to doubt his own regeneration, if he is conscious that he
sincerely worships the Lord Jesus.

4-6. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are
differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities
of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

The second thing which the apostle teaches concerning these gifts is, their
diversity of character in connection with the unity of their source and
design. He is not, however, to be understood as here dividing these gifts
into three classes, under the heads of gifts, ministrations, and operations;
but as presenting them each and all under three different aspects. Viewed
in relation to the Spirit, they are gifts; in relation to the Lord, they are
ministrations; and in relation to God, they are operations, i.e. effects
 265
wrought by his power. And it is the same Spirit, the same Lord, and the
same God who are concerned in them all. That is, the same Spirit is the
giver; it is he who is the immediate and proximate author of all these
various endowments. It is the same Lord in whose service and by whose
authority these various gifts are exercised. They are all different forms in
which he is served, or ministered to. And it is the same God the Father,
who having exalted the Lord Jesus to the supreme headship of the church,
and having sent the Holy Ghost, works all these effects in the minds of
men. There is no inconsistency between this statement and v. 11, where
the Spirit is said to work all these gifts; because God works by his Spirit.
So in one place we are said to be born of God, and in another to be born of
the Spirit. Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity underlies the whole scheme of
redemption in its execution and application as well as in its conception.

Those who understand this passage as describing three distinct classes of

gifts, one as derived from the Spirit, the other from the Son, and the other
from the Father, suppose that to the first class belong wisdom, knowledge,
and faith; to the second, church-offices; and to the third, gift of miracles.
But this view of the passage is inconsistent with the constant and equal
reference of these gifts to the Holy Spirit; they all come under the head of
“spiritual gifts;” and with what follows in vs. 8-10, where a different
classification is given. That is, the nine gifts there mentioned are not
classified in reference to their relation to the Father, Son, and Spirit; and
therefore it is unnatural to assume such a classification here. They are all
and equally gifts of the Spirit, modes of serving the Son, and effects due to
the efficiency of the Father.

7. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

But, i.e. notwithstanding these gifts have the same source, they are diverse
in their manifestations. To each one, i.e. to every believer, or every
recipient of the Holy Ghost, is given a manifestation of the Spirit. That is,
the Spirit who dwells in all believers as the body of Christ, manifests
himself in one way in one person, and in another way in another person.
The illustration which the apostle subsequently introduces is derived from
the human body. As the principle of life manifests itself in one organ as
the faculty of vision, and in another as the faculty of hearing, so the Holy
 266
Ghost manifests himself variously in the different members of the church;
in one as the gift of teaching, in another as the gift of healing. This is one of
those pregnant truths, compressed in a single sentence, which are
developed in manifold forms in different parts of the word of God. It is the
truth of which this whole chapter is the exposition and the application. To
profit withal (pro<v to< sumfe>ron), i.e. for edification. This is the common
object of all these gifts. They are not designed exclusively or mainly for the
benefit, much less for the gratification of their recipients; but for the good
of the church. Just as the power of vision is not for the benefit of the eye,
but for the man. When, therefore, the gifts of God, natural or supernatural,
are perverted as means of self-exaltation or aggrandizement, it is a sin
against their giver, as well as against those for whose benefit they were
intended.

With regard to the gifts mentioned in the following verses, it is to be

remarked, first, that the enumeration is not intended to include all the
forms in which the Spirit manifested his presence in the people of God.
Gifts are elsewhere mentioned which are not found in this catalogue; comp.
Romans 12:4-8, and v. 28 of this chapter. Secondly, that although the
apostle appears to divide these gifts into three classes, the principle of
classification is not discernible. That is, we can discover no reason why
one gift is in one class rather than in another; why, for example, prophecy,
instead of being associated with other gifts of teaching, is connected with
those of healing and working miracles. The different modes of classification
which have been proposed, even when founded on a real difference, cannot
be applied to the arrangement given by the apostle. Some would divide
them into natural and supernatural. But they are all supernatural, although
not to the same degree or in the same form. There are gifts of the Spirit
which are ordinary and permanent, such as those of teaching and ruling,
but they are not included in this enumeration, which embraces nothing
which was not miraculous, or at least supernatural. Others, as Neander,
divide them into those exercised by word, and those exercised by deeds.
To the former class belong those of wisdom, knowledge, prophecy, and
speaking with tongues; and to the latter the gifts of healing and miracles.
Others, again, propose a psychological division, i.e. one founded on the
different faculties involved in their exercise. Hence they are distinguished
as those which concern the feelings, those which pertain to the intelligence,
 267
and those which relate to the will. But this is altogether arbitrary, as all
these faculties are concerned in the exercise of every gift. It is better to take
the classification as we find it, without attempting to determine the
principle of arrangement, which may have been in a measure, so to speak,
fortuitous, or determined by the there association of ideas, rather than by
any characteristic difference in the gifts themselves. The Scriptures are
much more like a work of nature than a work of art; much more like a
landscape than a building. Things spring up where we cannot see the
reason why they are there, rather than elsewhere, while every thing is in its
right place.

8. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word
of knowledge by the same Spirit;

In v. 7, he had said, “To each one is given a manifestation of the Spirit,”

for to one is given one gift, and to another, another. What follows,
therefore, is the illustration and confirmation of what precedes. The point
to be illustrated is the diversity of forms in which the same Spirit
manifests himself in different individuals. “To one is given the word of
wisdom, to another the word of knowledge.” The word of wisdom, is the
gift of speaking or communicating wisdom; and the word of knowledge is
the gift of communicating knowledge. As to the difference, however,
between wisdom and knowledge, as here used, it is not easy to decide.
Some say the former is practical, and the latter speculative. Others, just
the reverse; and passages may be cited in favor of either view. Others say
that wisdom refers to what is perceived by intuition, i.e. what is
apprehended (as they say) by the reason; and knowledge what is perceived
by the understanding. The effect of the one is spiritual discernment; of the
other, scientific knowledge; i.e. the logical nature and relations of the truths
discerned. Others say that wisdom is the gospel, the whole system of
revealed truth, and the word of wisdom is the gift of revealing that esteem
as the object of faith. In favor of this view are these obvious
considerations,
1. That Paul frequently uses the word in this sense. In ch. 2 he says, we
speak wisdom, the wisdom of God, the hidden wisdom which the great
of this world never could discover, but which God has revealed by his
Spirit.
 268
2. That gift stands first as the most important, and as the characteristic
gift of the apostles, as may be inferred from v. 28, where the
arrangement of offices to a certain extent corresponds with the
arrangement of the gifts here presented. Among the gifts, the first is the
word of wisdom; and among the offices, the first is that of the
apostles. It is perfectly natural that this correspondence should: be
observed at the beginning, even if it be not carried out. This gift in its
full measure belonged to the apostles alone; partially, however, also, to
the prophets of the New Testament. Hence apostles and prophets are
often associated as possessing the same gift, although in different
degrees. “Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,”
Ephesians 2:20. “As now revealed unto the holy apostles and
prophets by the Spirit,” Ephesians 3:5; see also 4:11.
The characteristic difference between these classes of officers was, that the
former were endowed with permanent and plenary, the latter with
occasional and partial, inspiration. By the word of knowledge, as
distinguished from the word of wisdom, is probably to be understood the
gift which belonged to teachers. Accordingly, they follow the apostles and
prophets in the enumeration given in v. 28. The word of knowledge was
the gift correctly to understand and properly to exhibit the truths revealed
by the apostles and prophets. This agrees with 13:8, where the gift of
knowledge is represented as pertaining to the present state of existence. By
the same Spirit, literally, according to the same Spirit, i.e. according to his
will, or as he sees fit; see v. 11. The Spirit is not only the author, but the
distributor of these gifts. And therefore sometimes they are said to be
given (dia>) by, and sometimes (kata>) according to, the Spirit.

9. To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the
same Spirit;

There is a distinction indicated in the Greek which is not expressed in our

version. The main divisions in this enumeration seem to be indicated by
e[terov, and the subordinate ones by a]llov, though both words are
translated by another; the former, however, is a stronger expression of
difference. Here, therefore, where eJte>rw| is used, a new class seems to be
introduced. To the first class belong the word of wisdom and the word of
knowledge; to the second, all that follow except the last two. To another
 269
faith. As faith is here mentioned as a gift peculiar to some Christians, it
cannot mean saving faith, which is common to all. It is generally supposed
to mean the faith of miracles to which our Lord refers, Matthew 17:19, 20,
and also the apostle in the following chapter, “Though I have all faith, so
that I could remove mountains,” 13:2. But to this it is objected, that the
gift of miracles is mentioned immediately afterwards as something different
from the gift of faith. Others say it is that faith which manifests itself in all
the forms enumerated under this class, that is, in miracles, in healing, in
prophecy, and in discerning of spirits. But then it is nothing peculiar; it is
a gift common to all under this head, whereas it is as much distinguished
from them, as they are from each other. Besides, no degree of faith
involves inspiration which is supposed in prophecy. In the absence of
distinct data for determining the nature of the faith here intended, it is
safest, perhaps, to adhere to the simple meaning of the word, and assume
that the gift meant is a higher measure of the ordinary grace of faith. Such a
faith as enabled men to become confessors and martyrs, and which is so
fully illustrated in Hebrews 11:33-40. This is something as truly
wonderful as the gift of miracles. To another the gifts of healing, i.e. gifts
by which healing of the sick was effected, Acts 4:30. This evidently refers
to the miraculous healing of diseases.

10. To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another

discerning of spirits; to another (divers) kinds of tongues; to another the
interpretation of tongues:

Working of miracles, literally, effects which are miraculous, or which

consist in miracles. This is more comprehensive than the preceding gift.
Some had merely the gift of healing the sick, while others had the general
power of working miracles. This was exemplified in the death of Ananias,
in raising Dorcas, in smiting Elymas with blindness, and in many other
cases.

To another prophecy. The nature of this gift is clearly exhibited in the 14th
ch. It consisted in occasional inspiration and revelations, not merely or
generally relating to the future, as in the case of Agabus, Acts 11:28, but
either in some new communications relating to faith or duty, or simply an
immediate impulse and aid from the Holy Spirit, in presenting truth
 270
already known, so that conviction and repentance were the effects aimed at
and produced; comp. 14:25. The difference, as before stated, between the
apostles and prophets, was, that the former were permanently inspired, so
that their teaching was at all times infallible, whereas the prophets were
infallible only occasionally. The ordinary teachers were uninspired,
speaking from the resources of their own knowledge and experience.

To another discerning of spirits. It appears, especially from the epistles of

the apostle John, that pretenders to inspiration were numerous in the
apostolic age. He therefore exhorts his readers, “to try the spirits, whether
they be of God; for many false prophets are gone out into the world,” 1
John 4:1. It was therefore of importance to have a class of men with the
gift of discernment, who could determine whether a man was really
inspired, or spoke only from the impulse of his own mind, or from the
dictation of some evil spirit. In 14:29, reference is made to the exercise of
this gift. Compare also 1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21.

To another divers kinds of tongues. That is, the ability to speak in

languages previously unknown to the speakers. The nature of this gift is
determined by the account given in Acts 2:4-11, where it is said, the
apostles spoke “with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance;” and
people of all the neighboring nations asked with astonishment, “Are not all
these that speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own
tongue wherein we were born?” It is impossible to deny that the miracle
recorded in Acts consisted in enabling the apostles to speak in languages
which they had never learnt. Unless, therefore, it be assumed that the gift
of which Paul here speaks was something of an entirely different nature,
its character is put beyond dispute. The identity of the two, however, is
proved from the sameness of the terms by which they are described. In
Mark 16:17, it was promised that the disciples should speak “with new
tongues.” In Acts 2:4, it is said they spoke “with other tongues.” In Acts
10:46, and 19:6, it is said of those on whom the Holy Ghost came, that
“they spake with tongues.” It can hardly be doubted that all these forms of
expression are to be understood in the same sense; that to speak “with
tongues” in Acts 10:46, means the same thing as speaking “with other
tongues,” in Acts 2:4, and that this again means the same as speaking
“with new tongues,” as promised in Mark 16:17. If the meaning of the
 271
phrase is thus historically and philologically determined for Acts and
Mark, it must also be determined for the Epistle to the Corinthians. If
tongues means languages in the former, it must have the same meaning in
the latter. We have thus two arguments in favor of the old interpretation of
this passage. First, that the facts narrated in Acts necessitate the
interpretation of the phrase “to speak with other tongues” to mean to
speak with foreign languages. Second, that the interchange of the
expressions, new tongues, other tongues, and tongues, in reference to the
same event, shows that the last mentioned (to speak with tongues) must
have the same sense with the two former expressions, which can only
mean to speak in new languages. A third argument is, that the common
interpretation satisfies all the facts of the case. Those facts are,
1. That what was spoken with tongues was intelligible to those who
understood foreign languages, as appears from Acts 2:11. Therefore the
speaking was not an incoherent, unintelligible rhapsody.
2. What was uttered were articulate sounds, the vehicle of prayer, praise,
and thanksgiving, 1 Corinthians 14:14-17.
3. They were edifying, and therefore intelligible to him who uttered them,
1 Corinthians 14:4, 16.
4. They admitted of being interpreted, which supposes them to be
intelligible.
5. Though intelligible in themselves, and to the speaker, they were
unintelligible to others, that is, to those not acquainted with the
language used; and consequently unsuited for an ordinary Christian
assembly. The folly which Paul rebuked was, speaking in Arabic to
men who understood only Greek. The speaker might understand what
he said, but others were not profited, 1 Corinthians 14:2, 19.
6. The illustration employed in 1 Corinthians 14:7, 11, from musical
instruments, and from the case of foreigners, requires the common
interpretation. Paul admits that the sounds uttered were “not without
signification,” v. 10. His complaint is, that a man who speaks in an
unknown tongue is to him a foreigner, v. 11. This illustration supposes
the sounds uttered to be intelligible in themselves, but not understood
by those to whom they were addressed.
7. The common interpretation is suited even to those passages which
 272
present the only real difficulty in the case; viz., those in which the
apostle speaks of the understanding as being unfruitful in the exercise
of the gift of tongues, and those in which he contrasts praying with the
spirit and praying with the understanding, 14:14, 15. Although these
passages, taken by themselves, might seem to indicate that the speaker
himself did not understand what he said, and even that his intellect was
in abeyance, yet they may naturally mean only that the understanding
of the speaker was unprofitable to others; and speaking with the
understanding may mean speaking intelligibly. It is not necessary,
therefore, to infer from these passages, that to speak with tongues was
to speak in a state of ecstasy, in a manner unintelligible to any human
being.
8. The common interpretation is also consistent with the fact that the gift
of interpretation was distinct from that of speaking with tongues. If a
man could speak a foreign language, why could he not interpret it?
Simply, because it was not his gift.
What he said in that foreign language, he said under the guidance of the
Spirit; had he attempted to interpret it without the gift of interpretation,
he would be speaking of himself, and not “as the Spirit gave him
utterance.” In the one case he was the organ of the Holy Ghost, in the
other he was not.

Fourth argument. Those who depart from the common interpretation of

the gift of tongues, differ indefinitely among themselves as to its true
nature. Some assume that the word tongues (glw~ssai) does not here mean
languages, but idioms or peculiar and unusual forms of expression. To
speak with tongues, according to this view, is to speak in an exalted poetic
strain, beyond the comprehension of common people. But it has been
proved from the expressions new and other tongues, and from the facts
recorded in Acts, that the word glw~ssai (tongues) must here mean
languages. Besides, to speak in exalted language is not to speak
unintelligibly. The Grecian people understood the loftiest strains of their
orators and poets. This interpretation also gives to the word glw~ssai a
technical sense foreign to all scriptural usage, and one which is entirely
inadmissible, at least in those cases where the singular is used. A man
might be said to speak in “phrases,” but not in “a phrase.” Others say that
 273
the word means the tongue as the physical organ of utterance; and to
speak; with the tongue is to speak in a state of excitement in which the
understanding and will do not control the tongue, which is moved by the
Spirit to utter sounds which are as unintelligible to the speaker as to
others. But this interpretation does not suit the expressions other tongues
and new tongues, and is irreconcilable with the account in Acts. Besides it
degrades the gift into a mere frenzy. It is out of analogy with all Scriptural
facts. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. The Old
Testament seers were not beside themselves, and the apostles in the use of
the gift of tongues were calm and rational, speaking the wonderful works
of God in a way which the foreigners gathered in Jerusalem easily
understood. Others, again, admit that the word tongues means languages,
but deny that they were languages foreign to the speaker. To speak with
tongues, they say, was to speak in an incoherent, unintelligible manner, in
a state of ecstasy, when the mind is entirely abstracted from the external
world, and unconscious of things about it, as in a dream or trance. This,
however, is liable to the objections already adduced against the other
theories. Besides, it is evident from the whole discussion, that those who
spake with tongues were self-controlled. They could speak or not as they
pleased. Paul censures them for speaking when there was no occasion for
it, and in such a manner as to produce confusion and disorder. They were,
therefore, not in a state of uncontrollable excitement, unconscious of what
they said or did. It is unnecessary to continue this enumeration of
conjectures; what has already been said would be out of place if the
opinions referred to had not found favor in England and in our own
country.

The arguments against the common view of the nature of the gift of
tongues, (apart from the exegetical difficulties with which it is thought to
be encumbered,) are not such as to make much impression upon minds
accustomed to reverence the Scriptures.
1. It is said the miracle was unnecessary, as Greek was understood
wherever the apostles preached. This, no doubt, is in a great degree
true. Greek was the language of educated persons throughout the
Roman empire, but it had not superseded the national languages in
common life; neither was the preaching of the apostles confined to the
limits of the Roman empire. Besides, this supposes that the only
 274
design of the gift was to facilitate the propagation of the gospel. This
was doubtless one of the purposes which it was intended to answer;
but it had other important uses. It served to prove the presence of the
Spirit of God; and it symbolized the calling of the Gentiles and the
common interest of all nations in the gospel. See the remarks on Acts
2:4.
2. It is said God is not wont by miracles to remove difficulties out of the
way of his people, which they can surmount by labor.
3. Others pronounce it impossible that a man should speak in a language
which he had never learnt. But does it thence follow that God cannot
give him the ability?
4. It appears that Paul and Barnabas did not understand the speech of
Lycaonia, Acts 14:11-14. The gift of tongues, however, was not the
ability to speak all languages. Probably most of those who received the
gift, could speak only in one or two. Paul thanked God that he had the
gift in richer measure than any of the Corinthians.
5. The gift does not appear to have been made subservient to the
missionary work. It certainly was in the first instance, as recorded in
Acts, and may have been afterwards.
6. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14:14-19, does not place speaking with tongues
and speaking in one’s own language in opposition; but speaking with
the understanding and speaking with the spirit; and therefore to speak
with tongues, is to speak without understanding, or in a state of
ecstasy. This is a possible interpretation of this one passage
considered in itself, but it is in direct contradiction to all those passages
which prove that speaking with tongues was not an involuntary,
incoherent, ecstatic mode of speaking.
The passage referred to, therefore, must be understood in consistency with
the other passages referring to the same subject. Though there are
difficulties attending any view of the gift in question, arising from our
ignorance, those connected with the common interpretation are
incomparably less than those which beset any of the modern conjectures.

To another, the interpretation of tongues. The nature of this gift depends

on the view taken of the preceding. Commonly, at least, the man using a
 275
foreign language was able to understand it, see 14:2, 4, 16, and may have
had the gift of interpretation in connection with the gift of tongues. It is
possible, however, that in some cases he did not himself understand the
language which he spoke, and then of course he would need an interpreter.
But even when he did understand the language which he used, he needed a
distinct gift to make him the organ of the Spirit in its interpretation. If
speaking with tongues was speaking incoherently in ecstasy, it is hard to
see how what was said could admit of interpretation. Unless coherent it
was irrational, and if irrational, it could not be translated.

11. But all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every
man severally as he will.

But all these, etc., i.e. notwithstanding the diversity of these gifts they
have a common origin. They are wrought by the same Spirit. What
therefore in v. 6 is referred to the efficiency of God, is here referred to the
efficiency of the Spirit. This is in accordance with constant scriptural
usage. The same effect is sometimes attributed to one, and sometimes to
another of the persons of the Holy Trinity. This supposes that, being the
same in substance (or essence) in which divine power inheres, they
cooperate in the production of these effects. Whatever the Father does, he
does through the Spirit. The Holy Ghost not only produces these gifts in
the minds of men, but he distributes them severally (ijdi>a)| to every man as
he will, i.e. not according to the merits or wishes of men, but according to
his own will. This passage clearly proves that the Holy Spirit is a person.
Will is here attributed to him, which is one of the distinctive attributes of a
person. Both the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost are therefore
involved in the nature of the work here ascribed to him.

12. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members
of that one body, being many, are one body: so also (is) Christ.

For introduces an illustration of the truth taught in the preceding verses.

Every organism, or organic whole, supposes diversity and unity. That is,
different parts united so as to constitute one whole. The apostle had
taught that in the unity of the church there is a diversity of gifts. This is
illustrated by a reference to the human body. It is one, yet it consists of
 276
many members. And this diversity is essential to unity; for unless the
body consisted of many members, it would not be a (sw~ma) body, i.e. an
organic whole. So also is Christ, i.e. the body of Christ, or the Church. As
the body consists of many members and is yet one; so it is with the
church, it is one and yet consists of many members, each having its own
gift and office. See Romans 12:4, 5. Ephesians 1:23, and 4:4, 16.

13. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether (we be)
Jews or Gentiles, whether (we be) bond or free; and have been all made to
drink into one Spirit.

This is the proof of what immediately precedes. The church is one, for by
one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. The word is not in the
present tense, but in the aorist. ‘We were, by the baptism of the Spirit,
constituted one body.’ This is commonly, and even by the modern
commentators, understood of the sacrament of baptism; and the apostle is
made to say that by the Holy Ghost received in baptism we were made
one body. But the Bible clearly distinguishes between baptism with water
and baptism with the Holy Ghost. “I indeed baptize you with water... but
he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost,” Matthew 3:11. “He that sent
the to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shall:
see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which
baptizeth with the Holy Ghost,” John 1:33. “John truly baptized with
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days
hence,” Acts 1:5. These passages not only distinguish between the
baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit, but they disconnect them.
The baptism to which Acts 1:5 refers took place on the day of Pentecost,
and had nothing to do with the baptism of water. It is not denied that the
one is sacramentally connected with the other; or that the baptism of the
Spirit often attends the baptism of water; but they are not inseparably
connected. The one may be without the other. And in the present passage
there does not seem to be even an allusion to water baptism, any more
than in Acts 1:5. Paul does not say that we are made one body by
baptism, but by the baptism of the Holy Ghost; that is, by spiritual
regeneration. Any communication of the Holy Spirit is called a baptism,
because the Spirit is said to be poured out, and those upon whom he is
poured out, whether in his regenerating, sanctifying, or inspiring
 277
influences, are said to be baptized. In all the passages above quoted the
expression is ejn pneu>mati, by the Spirit, as it is here. 23 It is not therefore
by baptism as an external rite, but by the communication of the Holy
Spirit that we are made members of the body of Christ. Unto one body
means so as to constitute one body (eijv , unto, expressing the result). No
matter how great may have been the previous difference, whether they
were Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, by this baptism of the Spirit, all who
experience it are merged into one body; they are all intimately and
organically united as partaking of the same life. Comp. Galatians 3:28. And
this is the essential point of the analogy between the human body and the
church. As the body is one because pervaded and animated by one soul or
principle of life, so the church is one because pervaded by one Spirit. And
as all parts of the body which partake of the common life belong to the
body, so all those in whom the Spirit of God dwells are members of the
church which is the body of Christ. And by parity of reasoning, those in
whom the Spirit does not dwell are not members of Christ’s body. They
may be members of the visible or nominal church, but they are not
members of the church in that sense in which it is the body of Christ. This
passage, therefore, not only teaches us the nature of the church, but also
the principle of its unity. It is one, not as united under one external visible
head, or under one governing tribunal, nor in virtue of any external visible
bond, but in virtue of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all its members.
And this internal spiritual union manifests itself in the profession of the
same faith, and in all acts of Christian fellowship.

And have all been made to drink into one Spirit. This is a difficult clause.
To drink into is an unexampled phrase, whether in English or Greek. The
text varies. In some MSS. it is eijv e{n pneu~ma, into one Spirit, in others, e{n
pneu~ma, one Spirit. The latter is adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf.
If this be preferred, the sense is, ‘We have all drank one Spirit.’ That is, we
have all been made partakers of one Spirit. Compare John 7:37, and other
passages, in which the Spirit is compared to water of which men are said
to drink. The meaning of the passage according to this reading is simple
and pertinent. ‘By the baptism of the Holy Ghost we have all been united
in one body and made partakers of one Spirit.’ If the common text be
preferred, the most natural interpretation would seem to be, ‘We have all
been made to drink so as to become one Spirit.’ The words (eijv e{n
 278
pneu~ma) unto one Spirit, would then correspond to (eijv e{n sw~ma) unto
one body. The allusion is supposed by Luther, Calvin and Beza to be to
the Lord’s Supper. ‘By baptism we become one body, and by drinking (of
the cup, i.e. by the Lord’s Supper) we become one body.’ But this allusion
is not only foreign to the context, but is not indicated by the words. How
can the simple word ejpoti>sqhmen, made to drink, in such a connection,
mean to partake of the Lord’s Supper? Besides, as the modern
commentators all remark, the tense of the verb forbids this interpretation.
It must express the same time with the preceding verb. ‘We were all
baptized (ejbapti>sqhmen), and we were all made to drink (ejpoti>sqhmen).
It is something done in the past, not something continued in the present
that the word expresses. If any thing is to be supplied it is not the word
cup, but the Spirit, i.e. the water of life. ‘We have been made to drink (i.e.
of the Spirit) so as to become one spirit.’ Another interpretation of the
common text supposes that the preposition (eijv ) into belongs to the
construction of the verb — to drink into being equivalent to drink of. The
sense is men the same as in the reading without the eijv , ‘We have all drank
of one Spirit.’ The doctrine taught is clear, viz., that by receiving the Spirit
we are all made members of the body of Christ, and that it is in virtue of
the indwelling of the Spirit that the church is one.

14. For the body is not one member, but many.

This is a proof that diversity of gifts and members is necessary to the

unity of the church. The church no more consists of persons all having the
same gifts, than the body is all eye or all ear. As the body is not one
member, but many, so the church is not one member, but many. The word
member means a constituent part having a function of its own. It is not
merely a multiplicity of parts that is necessary to the body; nor a
multiplicity of persons that is necessary to the church; but in both cases
what is required is a multiplicity of members in the sense just stated. To a
certain extent what Paul says of the diversity of gifts in individual
members of the church, may, in the existing state of things, be applied to
different denominations of Christians. No one is perfect or complete in
itself; and no one can say to the others, I have no need of you. Each
represents something that is not so well represented in the others. Each
has its own function to exercise and work to perform, which could not so
 279
well be accomplished without it. As, therefore, harmony and cooperation,
sympathy and mutual affection, are required between individual Christians
as constituent members of Christ’s body, so also should they prevail
between different denominations. It is only when the hand undertakes to
turn the foot out of the body, that the foot is bound in self-defense and for
the good of the whole, to defend its rights.

15, 16. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the
body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am
not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

The first and most obvious conclusion from the view which Paul had given
of the nature of the church is the duty of contentment. It is just as
unreasonable and absurd for the foot to complain that it is not the hand, as
for one member of the church to complain that he is not another; that is,
for a teacher to complain that he is not an apostle; or for a deaconess to
complain that she is not a presbyter; or for one who had the gift of healing
to complain that he had not the gift of tongues. This, as the apostle shows,
would destroy the very idea of the church.

17. If the whole body (were) an eye, where (were) the hearing? If the whole
(were) hearing, where (were) the smelling?

The obvious meaning of this verse is, that the very existence of the body
as an organization depends on the union of members endowed with
different functions. And the application of this idea to the church is
equally plain. It also requires to its existence a diversity of gifts and
offices. If all were apostles where would be the church?

18. But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it
hath pleased him.

But now, i.e. as the matter actually is. Instead of the body being all one
member, God has arranged and disposed the parts each in its place so as to
constitute one living organic whole. The eye did not give itself the power
of vision, nor the ear its ability to discriminate sounds. Each member
occupies in the body the position which God has seen fit to assign it, and
 280
which is most conducive to the good of the whole. It is so also in the
church; the position which the gifts of every member are determined by
the Lord. One has one gift and another another; one is a pastor and another
is a missionary; one labors in a city, another in the wilderness, not
according to their relative merits, nor in virtue of their own selection, but
as God wills and orders. It is therefore as inconsistent with the idea of the
church that each member should decide on his own position and functions,
as that the members of the body should arrange themselves according to
their own notions. The nature of the church supposes, that as in the body
the principle of life manifests itself under one form in the eye, and in
another form in the ear, so the Spirit of God dwelling in the church
manifests himself under one form in one member and under a different
form in another; and that the selection of his organs and distribution of his
gifts are according to his sovereign pleasure. We are contending against
him, therefore, when we contend against the position and the office which
he has assigned us in the church. It is easy to give this principle a wider
application. One is born in Europe, another in Asia; one in America,
another in Africa; one is rich, another poor; one has ten talents, another
one; not because one is better than the other, but simply because God has
so ordained. His will, as thus manifested, is not only sovereign but
infinitely wise and benevolent. It is on this diversity, whether in the world,
in the church, or in the human body, that the life and the good of the whole
depend. This verse thus contains the second practical inference from the
nature of the church as the body of Christ. The place and gifts of each
member are determined by the Lord.

19; 20. And if they were all one member, where (were) the body? But now
(are they) many members, yet but one body.

These verses are a repetition of the idea that diversity of organs in the
body is essential to its nature as a body, i.e. as an organization; and that
this diversity is perfectly consistent with unity.

21. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again
the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
 281
The third inference from the doctrine taught above, is the mutual
dependence of the members of the church. As in the body the eye cannot
dispense with the hand, nor the head with the feet, so in the church the
most highly gifted are as much dependent on those less favored as the
latter are on the former. Every thing like pride, therefore, is as much out of
place in the church as discontent.

22, 23. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more
feeble, are necessary: and those (members) of the body, which we think to
be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our
uncomely (parts) have more abundant comeliness.

The fourth inference from the apostle’s doctrine is, that the least attractive
gifts are the most important. As in the human frame the heart is more
important than the tongue, so in the church the gift of prayer is more
important than eloquence. Those who in the closet, however obscure,
wrestle with God, often do more for his glory and for the advancement of
his kingdom than those who fill the largest space in the public eye. What
would the tongue do without lungs, which are neither seen nor heard?
God’s thoughts are not as our thoughts. The childish Corinthians prized
the gift of tongues, which, as they used it, could edify no one, to the gift of
prophecy by which the whole body of Christ could be instructed and
comforted. And those persons and offices in the church which are most
admired or coveted, are often of little account in the sight of God. There is
another idea presented in these verses. It is an instinct of nature to adorn
most the least comely portions of the body; and it is an instinct of grace to
honor most those members of the church who least attract admiration.
Those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, i.e. less
likely to be honored; on those we bestow the more abundant honor, i.e. we
on that account honor them the more. It is thus with a mother. The child
which is the least admired, she cherishes with special affection. And it is
thus with the church. The true people of God are only the more disposed
to honor those of their number who are undervalued or despised. In the
body, as the apostle says, our uncomely parts have (i.e. they receive) more
abundant comeliness, i.e. are specially adorned.
 282
24. For our comely (parts) have no need: but God hath tempered the body
together, having given more abundant honor to that (part) which lacked:

Our comely parts have no need, i.e. of being thus adorned. The face is
uncovered, the feet are clothed and decked. The former needs no adorning,
the latter does. God hath tempered the body together, i.e. he has so
adjusted it and combined its several members, as to secure the result that
more abundant honor should be given to those which lacked. By making
the uncomely parts essential to the well-being of the rest, and by diffusing
a common life through all the members, he has made the body a
harmonious whole.

25, 26. That there should be no schism in the body; but (that) the members
should have the same care one for another. And whether one member
suffer, as the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the
members rejoice with it.

God has so constituted the body that there should be no schism in it, i.e.
no diversity of feeling or interest. Schism means simply division, but when
spoken of an organized body, or of a society, it commonly includes the
idea of alienation of feeling. Such was the schism which existed among the
Corinthians, see 1:10; 11:18. But that the members should have the same
care one for another. That is, that one member should have the same care
for another member that it has for itself. The body is so constituted that
the eye is as solicitous for the welfare of the foot as it is for its own
well-being. The consequence is that if one member suffers all the members
suffer with it; and if one member be honored, all the members rejoice with
it. This is the law of our physical nature. The body is really one. It has a
common life and consciousness. The pain or pleasure of one part is
common to the whole.

27. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

That is, collectively ye are the body of Christ; individually or severally, ye

are members. This is the application of the preceding analogy to the case
of the Corinthians. What had been said of the body, of its unity; of the
diversity of its members; of their mutual dependence; of the greater
 283
importance of the weaker than of the stronger members; of the community
of feeling and interest that pervades the whole; is all true in its application
to the church. The body of Christ is really one, pervaded by one and the
same spirit; it consists of many members of different gifts and functions,
each according to the will of the Spirit; these members are mutually
dependent; the humble and obscure are more necessary to the being and
welfare of the church than those distinguished by attractive gifts; and the
law of sympathy pervades the whole, so that if one Christian suffers all
his fellow Christians suffer with him, and if one believer is honored, all
believers rejoice with him. It is to be observed that Paul is not speaking of
what ought to be, but of what is. He does not say that it is the duty of one
member of the human body to care for another member, but that it does
thus care. Such is the law of our nature. The want of this sympathy in any
part with all the rest, would prove that it was a there excrescence which
did not partake of the common life. The same is true with regard to the
body of Christ. It is not merely the duty of one Christian to have
sympathy with another, to suffer when he suffers, and to rejoice when he
is honored; but such is the nature of their relation that it must be so. The
want of this sympathy with our fellow Christians, no matter by what
name they may be called, is proof that we do not belong to the body of
Christ. In this, as in all other respects, Christians are imperfect. The time
has not yet come when every believer shall have the same care for another
that he has for himself, and rejoice in his joy and grieve in his sorrow as
though they were his own. The ideal is here set before us, and blessed are
those who approach nearest to the standard.

28. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily
prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps,
governments, diversities of tongues.

In Ephesians 4:11, Paul says, “God gave some apostles, some prophets,”
etc. He began here to use the same form, ‘God hath set some in the
church,’ but varies the construction, and says, First, apostles. This verse is
an amplification of the preceding one. In v. 27 he said the church is
analogous to the human body. He here shows that the analogy consists in
the common life of the church, or the indwelling Spirit of God, manifesting
itself in a diversity of gifts and offices, just as the common life of the body
 284
manifests itself in different organs and members. In the church some were
apostles, i.e. immediate messengers of Christ, rendered infallible as
teachers and rulers by the gift of plenary inspiration. Secondly, prophets,
i.e. men who spoke for God as the occasional organs of the Spirit. Thirdly,
teachers, i.e. uninspired men who had received the gift of teaching.
Fourthly, miracles; here and in what follows abstract terms are used for
concrete — miracles mean men endowed with the power of working
miracles. Fifthly, gifts of healing, i.e. persons endowed with the power of
healing diseases. Sixthly, helps, i.e. persons qualified and appointed to help
the other officers of the church, probably in the care of the poor and the
sick. These, according to the common understanding from Chrysostom to
the present day, were deacons and deaconesses. Seventhly, governments,
i.e. men who had the gift and authority to rule. As this gift and office are
distinguished from those of teachers, it cannot be understood of the
presbyters or bishops who were required “to be apt to teach.” It seems to
refer clearly to a class of officers distinct from teachers, i.e. rulers, or as
they are called in the Reformed churches, “ruling elders,” and in the ancient
church, seniores plebis. Finally, diversities of tongues, i.e. persons having
the gift of speaking in foreign languages. This is put last probably because
it was so unduly valued and so ostentatiously displayed by the
Corinthians.

On this enumeration it may be remarked, first, that it was not intended to

be exhaustive. Gifts are mentioned in vs. 8-10, and elsewhere, which have
nothing to correspond to them here. Secondly, every office necessarily
supposes the corresponding gift. No man could be an apostle without the
gift of infallibility; nor a prophet without the gift of inspiration; nor a
healer of diseases without the gift of healing. Man may appoint men to
offices for which they have not the necessary gifts, but God never does,
any more than he ordains the foot to see or the hand to hear. If any man,
therefore, claims to be an apostle, or prophet, or worker of miracles,
without the corresponding gift, he is a false pretender. In the early church,
as now, there were many false apostles, i.e. those who claimed the honor
and authority of the office without its gifts. Thirdly, the fact that any
office existed in the apostolic church is no evidence that it was intended to
be permanent. In that age there was a plenitude of spiritual manifestations
and endowments demanded for the organization and propagation of the
 285
church, which is no longer required. We have no longer prophets, nor
workers of miracles, nor gifts of tongues. The only evidence that an office
was intended to be permanent is the continuance of the gift of which it was
the organ, and the command to appoint to the once those who are found to
possess the gift. The only evidence that God intended the eye to be a
permanent organ of the body, is, that he has perpetuated the faculty of
vision. Had the gift of sight been discontinued, it would avail little that
men should call the mouth and nose eyes, and demand that they should be
recognized as such. This is precisely what Romanists and others do, when
they call their bishops apostles, and require men to honor and obey them
as though they were. Fourthly, the only evidence of a call to an office, is
the possession of the requisite gifts. If a man received the gift of prophecy,
he was thereby called to be a prophet; or if he received the gift of healing,
he was thereby called to exercise that gift. So if any man has received
ministerial gifts, he has received a call to the ministry. What those gifts are
the Bible has taught us. They are such as these: soundness in the faith,
competent knowledge, ability to teach, the love of Christ and zeal for his
glory, an intelligent conviction of an obligation to preach the gospel, and in
short the qualifications which are necessary in one who is to be an example
and guide of the flock of Jesus Christ. The office of the church in the
matter is, first to examine whether the candidate for the ministry really
possesses ministerial gifts, and men, if satisfied on that point,
authoritatively to declare its judgment in the appointed way. The same
remarks may be made in reference to a call to the missionary work or to
any other department of labor in the church of Christ. The fundamental
idea is that the church is the body of Christ, filled by his Spirit, and that
the Spirit distributes to every one severally as he wills, the gifts which he
designs him to exercise for the edification of the whole.

29, 30. (Are) all apostles? (are) all prophets? (are) all teachers? (are) all
workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with
tongues? do all interpret?

As in the body all is not eye, or all ear, so in the church all have not the
same gifts and offices. And as it would be preposterous in all the members
of the body to aspire to the same office, so it is no less preposterous in the
members of the church that all should covet the same gifts. It is the design
 286
of the apostle to suppress, on the one hand, all discontent and envy, and
on the other, all pride and arrogance. God distributes his gifts as he
pleases; all are necessary, and the recipients of them are mutually
dependent.

31. But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more
excellent way.

All cannot have every gift, but covet earnestly the better ones. To covet
(zhlo>w) is earnestly to desire, with the implication of corresponding effort
to obtain. The extraordinary gifts of the Spirit were bestowed according to
his own good pleasure. But so also are his saving benefits. Yet both may
be, and should be sought in the use of the appointed means. The best gifts;
literally, the better gifts, by which is meant, as appears from 14:5, those
which were the more useful. The Corinthians had a very different standard
of excellence; and coveted most the gifts which were the most attractive,
although the least useful. And yet (or, moreover) I shew you an excellent
way. The expression is not in itself comparative, more excellent, but
simply a way according to excellence, i.e. an excellent way. Whether it is
excellent compared to something else, or most excellent, depends on the
context. Here no comparison is implied. The idea is not that he intends to
show them a way that is better than seeking gifts, but a way par excellence
to obtain those gifts. The other view is indeed adopted by Calvin and
others but it supposes the preceding imperative (covet ye) to be merely
concessive, and is contrary to 14:1, where the command to seek the more
useful gifts is repeated. The sense is, ‘Seek the better gifts, and moreover I
show you an excellent way to do it.’
 287

CHAPTER XIII.
CHRISTIAN LOVE. VS. 1-13.

Love is superior to all extraordinary gifts. It is better than the gift of

tongues, v. 1; than the gifts of prophecy and knowledge, v. 2; and than the
gift of miracles, v. 2. All outward works of charity without it are
worthless, v. 3. Love has this superiority, first, because of its inherent
excellence, and secondly, because of its perpetuity. As to its superior
excellence, it implies or secures all other excellence.
1. It includes all the forms of kindness.
2. It is humble and modest.
3. It is unselfish.
4. It sympathizes with all good, vs. 4-7. It is perpetual — all the
extraordinary gifts mentioned in the preceding chapter were designed
for the present state of existence, or were temporary.
Love is never to cease, v. 8. Knowledge, as a special gift, and perhaps also
in the form in which it exists in this world, is to pass away. It is now the
apprehension of truth as through a mirror — hereafter it will be lost in
immediate vision, vs. 9-12. The permanent graces are faith, hope, and love,
and the greatest of these is Love, v. 13.

This chapter, although devoted to a single Christian grace, and therefore

not to be compared with the eighth chapter of Romans, or with some
chapters in the epistle to the Ephesians, as an unfolding of the mysteries
of redemption, still has ever been considered as one of the jewels of
Scripture. For moral elevation, for richness and comprehensiveness, for
beauty and felicity of expression, it has been the admiration of the church
in all ages. — With regard to the word charity, as the translation of the
Greek ajga>ph, it has already been remarked in the comment on 8:1, that it
is peculiarly unhappy. Neither in its primary signification, nor in the sense
which usage has attached to it, does it properly answer to the Greek term.
The latter occurs about one hundred and sixteen times in the New
 288
Testament, and is translated love in all places except twenty-three; and in
those the departure from the common usage is altogether arbitrary. The
word charity is just as inappropriate in this chapter as it would be in such
phrases as, “the Son of his charity,” or, “the charity of God is shed abroad
in our hearts,” or, “the charity of Christ.” The Greek word ajga>ph is not of
heathen origin. The heathen had no conception of the grace which in the
Scriptures is expressed by that term; neither e]rwv nor fili>a answers to
the Scriptural sense of ajga>ph; nor do the Latin words amor or caritas. It
was the unsuitableness of the former that induced Jerome to adopt the
latter as the more elevated of the two. The one properly expresses love
founded on sympathy; the latter came to mean love founded on respect.
Its English derivative (charity) retains more of the original force of the
Latin word. Caritas (from carus, a carendo, dear, i.e. costly) is properly
dearness or costliness; and then it came to express the feeling arising from
the sight of want and suffering. And this is the common meaning still
attached to the English word, which renders it unsuitable as the substitute
of the comprehensive word love. Many have been led to think that
almsgiving covers a multitude of sins, because charity is said to have that
effect; and that kindness to the poor and the sick is the sum of all religion,
because Paul exalts charity above faith and hope. It is not of charity, but of
love, of which the Bible thus speaks.

SUPERIORITY OF LOVE TO ALL OTHER GIFTS.

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
charity, I am become (as) sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

The gift of tongues, on which the Corinthians so much valued themselves,

is mentioned first, because it was the prominent subject in this whole
discussion. The tongues of men are the languages which men speak. As this
is the obvious meaning of the expression, it serves to prove that the gift of
tongues was the gift of speaking foreign languages. The tongues of angels
are the languages which angels use. A mode of expression equivalent to ‘all
languages human or divine.’ Paul means to say, that the gift of tongues in
its highest conceivable extent without love is nothing. Without love I am
become, i.e. the there want of love has reduced me, notwithstanding the
gift in question, to a level with sounding brass; not a musical instrument
 289
made of brass, which has some dignity about it, but to a piece of clattering
brass which makes a senseless noise; or, at least, to a tinkling cymbal, the
lowest and least expressive of all musical instruments. Tinkling
(ajlala>zon) properly clanging, expressive of the loud shrill noise made by
the cymbal. These instruments were of two kinds, one small, worn on the
thumb and middle finger, answering, it is thought, to the modern castanets;
the other large, broad plates, like our common cymbals. Joseph. Ant. 7. 12.
3. Both kinds are perhaps referred to in Psalms 150:5, where the
Septuagint distinguishes them as the sweet-toned and the loud. The latter is
the kind here specified. The illustration was probably adopted from the
shrill, discordant noise made by the speakers with their tongues, each
endeavoring to drown the voice of all the others, as seems from what
follows to have been the case with the Corinthians. Paul says, 14:23, the
meetings for worship in Corinth, if all spoke with tongues, would be so
confused as to make strangers think they were mad.

2 And though I have (the gift of) prophecy, and understand all mysteries,
and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove
mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

There are three gifts here referred to, prophecy, “the word of knowledge,”
and miracles. ‘Though I have the gift of prophecy, so as to understand all
mysteries, and (though I have) all knowledge, and all faith,’ etc. As the
particle eja>n, though, by which the distinction of gifts is indicated in the
context, is here omitted, the first two clauses are commonly combined
‘Though I have the gift of prophecy, so as to understand all mysteries, and
so as to possess all knowledge.’ There are two objections to this. The
passage literally reads, ‘that I may know all mysteries and all knowledge;’
so that the words mysteries and knowledge grammatically depend on
(eijdw~ ), I may know. But this would make Paul use an unexampled phrase,
‘to know knowledge.’ Something, therefore, must be supplied, and it is as
natural to borrow from the context the words, though I have, as simply,
that I may have. And secondly, Paul distinguishes between prophecy and
knowledge as distinct gifts, v. 8 and 12:8-10. The understanding or
apprehension of mysteries, and not the possession of knowledge, in its
distinctive sense, was the result of the gift of prophecy. Mysteries are
secrets, things undiscoverable by human reason, which divine revelation
 290
alone can make known. And the gift of prophecy was the gift of revelation
by which such mysteries were communicated; see 14:30. All mysteries,
therefore, here means, all the secret purposes of God relating to
redemption. This limitation is required by the context. Paul intends to say,
that though he was the recipient of all the revelations which God ever
designed to make concerning the plan of salvation and the kingdom of
Christ, without love he would be nothing.

And all knowledge, i.e. and though I have all knowledge. By knowledge is
meant the intellectual apprehension or cognition of revealed truth. It was
the prerogative of the prophet to reveal, of the teacher to know and to
instruct. Compare 14:6, where Paul connects revelation with prophecy,
and knowledge with doctrine or teaching. And all faith, i.e. all degrees of the
faith of miracles, so that the greatest wonders, such as removing
mountains, could be thereby accomplished. Compare our Lord’s language
in Matthew 21:21. I am nothing, i.e. worthless. Neither intellectual gifts
nor attainments, nor power, without love, are of any real value. They do
not elevate the character or render it worthy of respect or confidence.
Satan may have, and doubtless has, more of intelligence and power than
any man ever possessed, and yet he is Satan still. Those, therefore, who
seek to exalt men by the mere cultivation of the intellect, are striving to
make satans of them.

3. And though l bestow all my goods to feed (the poor), and though I give
my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth the nothing.

Paul here advances one step further. All outward acts of beneficence are of
no avail without love. A man may give away his whole estate, or sacrifice
himself, and be in no sense the gainer. He may do all this from vanity, or
from the fear of perdition, or to purchase heaven, and only increase his
condemnation. Religion is no such easy thing. Men would gladly
compound by external acts of beneficence, or by penances, for a change of
heart; but the thing is impossible. Thousands indeed are deluded on this
point, and think that they can substitute what is outward for what is
inward, but God requires the heart, and without holiness the most liberal
giver or the most suffering ascetic cam never see God. The original word
(ywmi>zw) here used, literally means, to feed by morsels. It is generally
 291
followed by two accusatives, to feed a person with something. Here the
accusative of the person is omitted, so that the passage stands, ‘Though I
feed out my property,’ i.e. distribute it in food. And though I give my body
to be burned, i.e. though I make the most painful sacrifice of myself. A
man may not only give his property but his life, and be nothing the better.
It is not probable that the apostle refers to martyrdom, or that the idea is,
that a man may, from wrong motives, submit to be a martyr. The context
requires that the reference should be to a sacrifice made for the good of
others. Some suppose that the reference is to the branding of slaves to
indicate their ownership. The meaning would then be, ‘Though I not only
give away all my goods, but should sell myself as a slave for the sake of
the poor, it would profit the nothing.’ Had Paul intended to say this, he
would probably have used the appropriate term for branding. We do not
express the idea that an animal was branded, by saying it was burnt. There
is no necessity for departing from the simple sense of the words. ‘Though
I give my body to be burnt for others, i.e. though I should die for them,
without love it profiteth me nothing.’

4. Charity suffereth long, (and) is kind; charity envieth not; charity

vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Almost all the instructions of the New Testament are suggested by some
occasion, and are adapted to it. We have not in this chapter a methodical
dissertation on Christian love, but an exhibition of that grace as contrasted
with extraordinary gifts which the Corinthians inordinately valued. Those
traits of love are therefore adduced which stood opposed to the temper
which they exhibited in the use of their gifts. They were impatient,
discontented, envious, inflated, selfish, indecorous, unmindful of the
feelings or interests of others., suspicious, resentful, censorious. The
apostle personifies love, and places her before them and enumerates her
graces, not in logical order, but as they occurred to him in contrast to the
deformities of character which they exhibited.

Love suffereth long, i.e. is long-minded, or slow to be roused to

resentment. It patiently bears with provocation, and is not quick to assert
its rights or resent an injury. It is kind, i.e. is inclined to perform good
offices; is good-natured. The root of the verb (crhsto>v, from cra>omai)
 292
means useful, and hence its primary sense is, disposed to be useful. The
excellence here indicated is the positive side of that already mentioned.
Love is not quick to resent evil, but is disposed to do good. It envieth not.
The word (zhlo>w) here used may express any wrong feeling excited in
view of the good of others; not only envy, but hatred, emulation, and the
like. It vaunteth not itself (perpereu>etai), this includes all forms of the
desire to gain the applause of others. Love does not seek to win admiration
and applause. Is not puffed up, i.e. conceited. This is the root of the
preceding. The man who has a high conceit of himself is apt to be boastful
and desirous of praise. Love, on the other hand, is modest and humble;
modest because humble.

5. Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily
provoked, thinketh no evil;

Doth not behave itself unseemly, i.e. does nothing of which one ought to be
ashamed. Its whole deportment is decorous and becoming. Seeketh not her
own; is disinterested, 10:33. Is not easily provoked, i.e. is not quick
tempered; or, does not suffer itself to be roused to resentment. And,
therefore, it thinketh no evil, or rather, it does not think evil. This may
mean,
1. It does not plan or devise evil. But the expression is (to< kako>n) the
evil, and not (kaka>) evil. Comp. Matthew 9:4.
2. It does not impute evil, i.e. attribute evil motives to others, or is not
suspicious. The sense is good in itself, but not so suitable to the
connection as,
3. It does not lay the evil which it suffers to the charge of the wrong-doer.
Instead of being resentful, it is forgiving.

6. Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

The general sentiment of this verse is, that love does not sympathize with
evil, but with good. It rejoiceth not in iniquity, i.e. in any thing which is not
conformed to the standard of right. The word is usually translated
unrighteousness; but this is not to be limited to injustice, but includes all
forms of moral evil. Truth is often used antithetically in Scripture to
 293
unrighteousness, as it is here. Romans 1:8, comp. John 3:21; 1 John 1:6,
and other passages, in which men are said to do the truth. Hence it is
commonly interpreted in such cases as meaning righteousness. ‘Love does
not rejoice in unrighteousness, but it rejoices together with (sugcai>rei)
righteousness,’ i.e. sympathizes with it, and has a common joy with it. As,
however, the word so commonly in Paul’s epistles stands for religious
truth as revealed in the gospel, perhaps the majority of commentators so
understand it here. ‘Love rejoices together with the truth.’ This, however,
not only destroys the antithesis, but introduces a disturbing element into
the description; for it is of love as a virtue of which Paul is speaking. Its
sympathy with the gospel, therefore, does not seem to be appropriate in
this connection.

7. Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all
things.

Beareth all things. This may either mean, bears in silence all annoyances
and troubles, or covers up all things (as ste>gw may have either meaning),
in the sense of concealing or excusing the faults of others, instead of gladly
disclosing them. The latter interpretation harmonizes better with what
follows, but it is contrary to Paul’s usage as to this word. See 9:12; 1
Thessalonians 3:1, 5. With him the word always means to bear patiently.
Further, love believes all things, is not suspicious, but readily credits what
men say in their own defense. Hopeth all things, i.e. hopes for the best
with regard to all men. It would be contrary to the context to understand
the faith and hope here spoken of as referring to the truths and promises of
the gospel. Endureth all things. The word (uJpome>nw) is properly a
military word, and means to sustain the assault of an enemy. Hence it is
used in the New Testament to express the idea of sustaining the assaults of
suffering or persecution, in the sense of bearing up under them, and
enduring them patiently. 2 Timothy 2:10. Hebrews 10:32; 12:2. This
clause, therefore, differs from that at the beginning of the verse; as that had
reference to annoyances and troubles, this to suffering and persecutions.

8. Charity never faileth: but whether (there be) prophecies, they shall fail;
whether (there be) tongues, they shall cease; whether (there be) knowledge,
it shall vanish away.
 294

Love never fails, i.e. it endures for ever. It is not designed and adapted, as
are the gifts under consideration, merely to the present state of existence,
but to our future and immortal state of being. Whether there be prophecies,
or be it prophecies, they shall fail, i.e. be done away with. The gift shall
cease to be necessary, and therefore shall not be continued. Be it tongues,
etc., i.e. the gift of tongues shall cease. Be it knowledge, it shall vanish
away, i.e. cease to exist. It is the same word as that used above in reference
to prophecies. It is not knowledge in the comprehensive sense of the term
that is to cease, but knowledge as a gift; as one of the list of extraordinary
endowments mentioned above, 12:8-11. Knowledge, considered as the
intellectual apprehension of truth, is, as the apostle immediately states,
hereafter to be rendered perfect. But the lo>gov gnw>sewv, the word of
knowledge, 12:8, i.e. knowledge in that form in which it was the
foundation of the office of teacher, is to be done away with. Whether this
means that hereafter there will be no need of the office of teacher, and
therefore that the gift which qualified for that office shall cease; or whether
Paul means to say that the immediate vision of truth is to be hereafter so
different from our present discursive, obscure, and imperfect mode of
cognition, that it deserves to be called by a different name, may be matter
of doubt. Both are probably true. There will be no ignorance in heaven to
be removed through the intervention of human instructors; and there will
probably be as great a difference between the knowledge hereafter and
what we call knowledge here, as there is between hearing of an object and
seeing it. We may hear a description of a person or place and have thereby
a certain form of knowledge of him or it; but that form passes away, or is
merged in a higher, as soon as we see what we had before only heard about.

9, 10. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which
is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

This is the reason why knowledge and prophecy are to cease. They are
partial or imperfect, and therefore suited only to an imperfect state of
existence. The revelations granted to the prophets imparted there glimpses
of the mysteries of God; when those mysteries stand disclosed in the full
light of heaven, what need men of those glimpses? A skillful teacher may
by idiagrams and models give us some knowledge of the mechanism of the
 295
universe; but if the eye be strengthened to take in the whole at a glance,
what need men of a planetarium or of a teacher? The apostle employs two
illustrations to teach us the difference between the present and the future.
The one is derived from the difference between childhood and maturity;
the other from the difference between seeing a thing by imperfect
reflection, or through an obscure medium, and seeing it directly.

11. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I

thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

When I was a child; not an infant, but as opposed to one of mature age, a
child. I spake as a child. This does not refer to the gift of tongues as
something childish, but simply to the mode of speaking characteristic of
children. I understood as a child, rather, I felt and acted as a child;
otherwise too little distinction is made between this and the next clause. I
thought as a child. My language, feelings and thoughts were all childish.
The words (frone>w and logi>zomai) however, are so comprehensive that
the two clauses may be rendered, ‘I had the opinions of a child and I
reasoned as a child.’ The former word, however, is so often used to
express feeling, Matthew 16:23. Romans 8:5. Philippians 3:19. Colossians
3:2, that the first mentioned interpretation is to be preferred. When I
became a man, or having become a man, I have put away childish things,
i.e. my former childish mode of speaking, feeling and thinking. The feelings
and thoughts of a child are true and just, in so far as they are the natural
impression of the objects to which they relate. They are neither irrational
nor false, but inadequate. The impression which the sight of the heavens
makes on the mind of the child, is for the child a just and true impression.
The conception which it forms of what it sees is correct in one aspect of
the great object contemplated. Yet that impression is very different from
that which is made on the mind of the astronomer. In like manner our
views of divine things will hereafter be very different from those which we
now have. But it does not thence follow that our present views are false.
They are just as, far as they go, they are only inadequate. It is no part of
the apostle’s object to unsettle our confidence in what God now
communicates by his word and Spirit to his children, but simply to
prevent our being satisfied with the partial and imperfect.
 296
12. For now we see, through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

This is a confirmation of what precedes. Our present knowledge is

imperfect, for we now see through a glass. These words admit of three
interpretations.
1. The preposition (dia>) may have its ordinary instrumental sense, we
see by means of a glass; or,
2. It may have its local sense, through. Then, assuming glass (ejso>ptron)
to mean a window, the meaning is, we see as through a window; and as
the windows were commonly made of mica, and therefore imperfectly
transparent, to see through a window was to see dimly. As the word,
however, properly means a mirror, James 1:23, the best interpretation
probably is,
3. We see as through a mirror; the optical impression is that the object is
behind the mirror, and the spectator seems to look through it. The
ancient mirrors were of imperfectly polished metal, and the reflection
which they gave was very obscure. Darkly, literally, in an enigma.
This may be taken adverbially, as by our translators, we see
enigmatically, i.e. obscurely; or the idea may be that we see divine
things as it were wrapped up in enigmas.
We do not see the things themselves, but those things as set form in
symbols and words which imperfectly express them. The reference seems
to be to Numbers 12:8. Of an ordinary prophet God said, “I will make
myself known unto him in a vision, and speak to him in a dream;” but of
Moses he says, “With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently,
and not in dark sayings,” i.e. in enigmas. (The Septuagint version is di’
aijnigma>twn). The clearest revelation of the things of God in words is as
an enigma, when compared to sight. Every thing is comparative.
The revelations made to Moses were clear in comparison to the
communications made to others by visions and dreams. Paul says the
writings of Moses were enigmas compared to the revelations contained in
the gospel, 2 Corinthians 3:12, 13. And the gospel itself is obscure
compared to the lucid medium through which we shall see hereafter. But
then face to face, i.e. no longer through a mirror, but immediately. Comp.
Genesis 32:31. Numbers 12:8. The word of God is a mirror wherein even
 297
now we behold the glory of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18), but what is that
to seeing him face to face!

Now I know in part (imperfectly), but then shall I know even as I am

known, i.e. perfectly. As we are required to be perfect as our Father in
heaven is perfect, Matthew 5:48, so we may be said to know even as we
are known. We may be perfect in our narrow sphere, as God is perfect in
his; and yet the distance between him and us remain infinite. What Paul
wishes to impress upon the Corinthians is, that the gifts in which they so
much prided themselves, were small matters compared to what is in
reserve for the people of God.

13. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of
these (is) charity.

The words and now may either indicate time, now, during the present
state; or they may be inferential, now, i.e. since things are so, rebus sic
stantibus. In the latter case, the sense is, ‘Since these extraordinary gifts are
to pass away, faith, hope, and love abide.’ The former are temporary, the
latter are permanent. The only objection to this interpretation arises from
the apostle’s speaking of faith and hope abiding in a future state, whereas
elsewhere, Romans 8:24; 2 Corinthians 5:7, and Hebrews 11:1, faith and
hope seem to be represented as pertaining only to our present state of
existence, and as being hereafter merged, the one in sight, and the other in
fruition. This apparent inconsistency arises from the comprehensiveness
of the terms. The state of mind indicated by faith and hope as now
exercised, will not continue in the future life; but the state of mind, so to
speak, of the saints in heaven, may be designated by these same terms,
because confidence and expectation will continue for ever. Faith in one
form, ceases when merged in sight; but in another form it continues; and
the same is true of hope. Or perhaps the same idea may be more correctly
expressed by saying that some exercises of faith and hope are peculiar to
the present state, while others will never cease. Certain it is that there will
always be room even in heaven for confidence in God, and for hope of the
ever advancing and enlarging blessedness of the redeemed.

If, however, (nuni< de> ), but now, be taken, as is commonly done, as relating
 298
to time, the meaning is, ‘Now, i.e. so long as we continue in this world,
there remain faith, hope and love.’ These are the three great permanent
Christian graces, as opposed to the mere temporary gifts of prophecy,
miracles, and tongues. But this does not seem to be consistent with what
precedes. The contrast is not between the more or less permanent gifts
pertaining to our present state; but between what belongs exclusively to
the present, and what is to continue for ever. In v. 8 it is said of love, as a
ground or reason of its pre-eminence, that it never fails; and here the same
idea is expressed by saying, it abides. ‘To abide,’ therefore, must mean,
that it continues for ever. The same permanence is attributed to faith,
hope, and love. They are all contrasted with the temporary gifts, and they
are all said to abide. The one is to continue as long as the others. The
former interpretation is, therefore, to be preferred.

The greatest of these is love. In what sense is love greater than faith? Some
say, because it includes, or is the root of faith and hope. It is said that we
believe those whom we love, and hope for what we delight in. According
to Scripture, however, the reverse is true. Faith is the root of love. It is the
believing apprehension of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, that
calls forth love to him. Others say, the ground of superiority is in their
effects. But we are said to be sanctified, to be made the children of God, to
overcome the world, to be saved, by faith. Christ dwells in our hearts by
faith; he that believes hath eternal life, i.e. faith as including knowledge, is
eternal life. There are no higher effects than these so far as we are
concerned. Others say that love is superior to faith and hope, because the
latter belong to the present state only, and love is to continue for ever.
But, according to the true interpretation of the verse, all these graces are
declared to abide. The true explanation is to be found in the use which Paul
makes of this word greater, or the equivalent term better. In 12:31, he
exhorts his readers to seek the better gifts, i.e. the more useful ones. And in
14:5, he says, ‘Greater is he that prophesies, than he that speaks with
tongues;’ i.e. he is more useful. Throughout that chapter the ground of
preference of one gift to others is made to consist in its superior
usefulness. This is Paul’s standard; and judged by this rule, love is greater
than either faith or hope. Faith saves ourselves, but love benefits others.
 299

CHAPTER XIV.
Superiority of the gift of prophecy to that of tongues, vs. 1-25.
Special directions for the conduct of public worship, vs. 26-40.

SUPERIORITY OF THE GIFT OF PROPHECY

TO THAT OF TONGUES. VS. 1-15.

The superiority of the gift of prophecy to that of tongues is founded on

the consideration that he who speaks with tongues speaks to God,
whereas, he who prophesies, speaks to men, vs. 2, 3.

2. That he who speaks with tongues edifies only himself, whereas, he who
prophesies edifies the church, vs. 4, 5. That this must be so, is proved,
1. By an appeal to their own judgment and experience. If Paul came to
them speaking in a way which they could not understand, what good
could it do them? But if, as a prophet, he brought them a revelation
from God, or as a teacher, set before them a doctrine, they would be
edified, v. 6.
2. From the analogy of musical instruments. It is only when the sounds,
are understood, that they produce the desired effect. If a man does not
know that a given note of the trumpet is a signal for battle, he will not
prepare himself for the conflict, vs. 7-9.
3. From their experience in intercourse with strangers. If a man comes to
the speaking a language which I cannot understand, no matter how
polished or significant that language may be, he is a barbarian to me,
and I to him, vs. 10, 11. In their zeal, therefore, for spiritual gifts, they
should have regard to the edification of the church, v. 12. Hence, he
who had the gift of tongues should pray for the gift of interpretation;
as without the latter gift, however devotional he might be, his prayers
could not profit others, vs. 13, 14. It was not enough that the prayers
and praises should be spiritual, they must be intelligible; otherwise
those who were unlearned could not join in them, vs. 15-17.
 300
For himself, the apostle says, although more richly endowed with the gift
of tongues than any of his readers, he would rather speak five words so as
to be understood, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, vs. 18,
19. It was mere childishness in the Corinthians to be so delighted with a
gift which they could not turn to any practical account, v. 20. They should
learn wisdom from the experience of the Hebrews. It was as a judgment
that God sent among them teachers whom they could not understand. So
long as they were obedient, or there was hope of bringing them to
repentance, he sent them prophets speaking their own language, vs. 21, 22.
Their experience would not be dissimilar. If they came together, each
speaking in an unknown tongue, the effect would be only evil. But if, when
they assembled, all the speakers spoke so as to be understood, and under
the influence of the Spirit, then men would be convinced and converted,
and God glorified, vs. 23-25.

In the comment on 12:10, reasons have already been presented for adhering
to the common view, that the gift of tongues, of which the apostle here
speaks, was the gift miraculously conferred, of speaking in foreign
languages. Every one must feel, however, the truth of the remark of
Chrysostom in his commentary on this chapter: “This whole passage is
very obscure; but the obscurity arises from our ignorance of the facts
described, which, though familiar to those to whom the apostle wrote,
have ceased to occur.” That this gift should be specially connected with
prophesying, as in Acts 19:6, “they spake with tongues and prophesied,”
and elsewhere, is to be explained from the fact that all speaking under
divine, supernatural influence, was included under the head of
prophesying; and as all who spake with tongues “spake as the Spirit gave
them utterance,” in the wide sense of the word they all prophesied. But it
is not so easy to understand why this gift should have been so common,
nor why it should so often attend on conversion; see Acts 10:46; 19:6.
There are many things also in this chapter which it is not easy to
understand on any theory of the nature of the gift. Under these
circumstances it is necessary to hold fast what is clear, and to make the
certain our guide in explaining what is obscure. It is clear,
1. That the word tongues in this connection, as already proved, means
languages.
 301
2. That the speaker with tongues was in a state of calm self-control. He
could speak, or be silent, 14:28.
3. That what he said was intelligible to himself, and could be interpreted
to others.
4. That the unintelligibleness of what was said, arose not from the sounds
uttered being inarticulate, but from the ignorance of the hearer. The
interpretation of particular passages must, therefore, be controlled by
these facts.

1. Follow after charity, and desire spiritual (gifts), but rather that ye may
prophesy.

In the preceding chapters Paul had taught,

1. That all the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit were proper objects of
desire.
2. That they were of different relative importance.
3. That love was of greater value than any gift. In accordance with these
principles, the apostle exhorts his readers to follow after love; i.e. to
press towards it, as men do towards the goal in a race, Philippians
3:12, 14. Pursue it earnestly as the greatest good. But at the same time,
desire spiritual gifts.

Because love is more important than miraculous gifts, it does not follow
that the latter were not to be sought. The same word is used here as in
12:31. But rather that ye may prophesy. The two gifts specially in the
apostle’s mind were the gift of speaking with tongues, and that of
prophecy, i.e. the gift of speaking as the organ of the Spirit in a manner
adapted to instruct and edify the hearer. Of these two gifts, he says, the
latter is to be preferred. The reason for this preference is given in what
follows.

2. For he that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue speaketh not unto men but
unto God: for no man understandeth (him); howbeit in the spirit he
speaketh mysteries.
 302
What is here taught is, First, that he who speaks with tongues speaks not
to men, but to God. Second, that this means that men do not understand
him. Thirdly, that the reason of his not being understood is in the medium
of communication, not in the things communicated. Speaketh not unto men,
but unto God; or, speaks not for men, but for God. Sibi canit et musis,
according to the Latin proverb. Calvin. His communion is with God, and
not with man. For no man understandeth him. Literally, no man hears, i.e.
hears any articulate sounds. He hears the sound, but does not distinguish
the words. This, however, does not imply that the sounds uttered were in
themselves unintelligible, so that no man living (unless inspired) could
understand them. When the apostles spake with tongues on the day of
Pentecost, what they said was understood. The meaning is, not that no
man living, but that no man present, could understand. It is not the use of
the gift of tongues that he censures, but the use of that gift when no one
was present who understood the language employed. How be it in the spirit
he speaketh mysteries. Spirit does not mean the man’s own spirit as
distinguished from his understanding. The Scriptures do not distinguish
between the nou~v and pneu~ma as distinct faculties of the human
intelligence. The latter is not the higher spiritual powers of our nature, but
the Holy Spirit; comp. 2:14. In favor of this interpretation is,
1. The prevailing use of the word spirit in reference to the Holy Ghost in
all Paul’s epistles, and especially in this whole connection.
2. That the expression to speak in or by the Spirit, is an established
Scriptural phrase, meaning to speak under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit.
3. When spirit is to be distinguished from the understanding, it designates
the affections; a sense which would not at all suit this passage.
4. The meaning arrived at by this interpretation is natural, and suitable to
the connection. ‘Although he who speaks with tongues is not
understood, yet, guided by the Spirit, he speaks mysteries. Mysteries
mean divine truths; things which God has revealed.
In Acts 2:11, they are called “the wonderful things (ta< megalei~a ) of
God.” To make the word mean, things not understood by the hearer, is
contrary to the usage of the word. A secret disclosed, is no longer a secret;
and a mystery revealed ceases to be a mystery, for a mystery is something
 303
hidden. Besides, Paul would then say, ‘No man understands him, yet he
speaks what is not understood.’ 24 The meaning obviously is, that
although not understood, yet what he utters contains divine truth. The
difficulty was in the language used, not in the absence of meaning, or in the
fact that inarticulate sounds were employed. This verse, therefore,
contains nothing inconsistent with the commonly received view of the
nature of the gift in question. ‘He who speaks with tongues, speaks to
God and not to men, for no one (in the case supposed) understands him,
although what he says is replete with the highest meaning.’ The
implication is that these tongues were foreign to the hearers; and therefore
it is said, ‘no man understands him.”

3. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men (to) edification, and

exhortation, and comfort.

The prophet spoke in the native language of his hearers; the speaker with
tongues in a foreign language. This made the difference between the cases.
The one was understood and the other was not. The prophet spoke with a
view to edification. This is a general term including the sense of the two
following. He edified the church either by exhortation or comfort; either by
arousing believers to do or suffer, or by pouring into their hearts the
consolsations of the Spirit.

4. He that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue edifieth himself; but he that

prophesieth edifieth the church.

This follows from what had been said. The speaker with tongues did not
edify the church, because he was not understood; he did edify himself,
because he understood himself. This verse, therefore, proves that the
understanding was not in abeyance, and that the speaker was not in an
ecstatic state.

5. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for
greater (is) he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except
he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

I would that ye all spake with tongues. It was not to be inferred from what
 304
he had said, that the apostle undervalued this gift. He admitted its
importance as one of the manifestations of the Spirit, and he subsequently,
v. 18, gives thanks that he himself possessed it in rich measure. From this
it is evident that it was something of a higher nature than modern theories
would represent it. But rather that ye prophesied, (qe>lw i[na). I would
that. The same particle often follows verbs of wishing, praying, exhorting,
etc. For greater is he that prophesieth, etc., i.e. he is more useful than the
speaker with tongues, unless the latter interpret. “Nam si accedat
interpretatio, jam erit prophetia.” Calvin. Speaking under the supernatural
influence of the Spirit was common to both gifts; the only difference was
in the language used. If the speaker interpreted, then he prophesied. That
the church may receive edification. This proves that the contents of these
discourses, delivered in an unknown tongue, were edifying; and therefore
did not consist in mysteries in the bad sense of that term; i.e. in enigmas
and dark sayings. This passage also proves that the gift of interpretation,
although distinct from that of tongues, might be, and doubtless often was,
possessed by the same person, and consequently, that he understood what
he said. The absence of the gift of interpretation does not prove that the
speaker himself in such cases was ignorant of what he uttered. It only
proves that he was not inspired to communicate in another language what
he had delivered. Had he done so, it would have been on his own authority,
and not as an organ of the Spirit. It is conceivable that a man might speak
connectedly in a foreign language under the inspiration of the Spirit, so as
to be perfectly understood by those acquainted with the language, though
he himself did not understand a word of what he uttered. But this
hypothesis, though it would suit some passages in this chapter, is
inconsistent with others, and therefore cannot be adopted.

6. Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I
profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge,
or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Now (nuni< de> ), since things are so, i.e. since speaking with tongues
without interpreting is unedifying, what shall I profit you, asks the
apostle, if I should come to you speaking in a language which you do not
understand? He then varies the question, ‘What shall I profit you unless I
speak to you as a prophet, by (or rather with, ejn) a revelation, or as a
 305
teacher, with a doctrine.’ There are not four, but only two modes of
address contemplated in this verb. Revelation and prophecy belong to one;
and knowledge and doctrine to the other. He who received revelations was
a prophet, he who had “the word of knowledge” was a teacher.

7. And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except
they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or
harped?

This verse in Greek begins with the word o[mws, yet, which is variously
explained. The most natural interpretation is to assume that the word here,
as in Galatians 3:15, is out of its logical place, and that the sentence should
read thus: ‘Things without life giving sound, yet, unless they give a
distinction of sound, how shall it be known,” etc. The obvious design of
the illustration is to show the uselessness of making sounds which are not
understood. But what is the point of the analogy? According to some it is
this, as musical instruments emit a mere jargon of sounds, unless the
regular intervals be observed, so the speakers with tongues utter a mere
jargon. The sounds which they utter are not articulate words, but a
confused noise. 25 From this it is inferred that the speaking with tongues
was not the gift of speaking foreign languages. This would make Paul wish
(v. 5) that all the Corinthians would utter unmeaning sounds, and give
thanks that he produced more such jargon than any of them! It is plain
from what follows, as well as from the drift of the whole discourse, that
the simple point of the analogy is, that as we cannot know what is piped
or harped, or be benefited by it, unless we can discriminate the sounds
emitted; so we cannot be benefited by listening to one who speaks a
language which we do not understand. It is not the nature of the gift, but
the folly of the use made of it, which is the point which the apostle has in
view.

8. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to
the battle?

This is a confirmation of the last clause of the preceding verse. The sound
emitted does not produce its proper effect if it be unintelligible or
uncertain. This teaches us the point of the whole illustration. The trumpet
 306
may sound the battle call, but if that call is not understood, who will heed
it? So the speaker with tongues may announce the most important truths,
he may unfold mysteries, or pour forth praises as from a harp of gold,
what can it profit those who do not understand him?

9. So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood,

how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

This is the application of the preceding illustration, and affords another

proof of what the apostle intended to illustrate. It was not the nature of
the sounds uttered, but their unintelligibleness to the hearer, which was to
be considered. By the tongue, i.e. by means of the tongue as the organ of
speech. Words easy to be understood, or rather, an intelligible discourse.
This does not imply, as is contended by the advocates of the modern
theories, that those who spoke with tongues uttered inarticulate sounds.
The opposite of eu]shmov, is not inarticulate, but unintelligible, i.e. what is
not in fact understood. Ye shall speak into the air, i.e. in vain. Your words
are lost in the air, no ear receives them. In 9:26, the man who struck: in
vain is said to smite the air.

10. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of
them (is) without signification.

There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices. The words (eij tu>coi),
properly rendered, it may be, are often used to render a statement
indefinite, where precision is impossible or unimportant. It was no matter,
so far as the apostle’s object was concerned, whether the “kinds of sound”
in the world were more or less. There are so many, or, as we should say,
‘There are ever so many, it may be, languages in the world.’ Kinds of
voices. Calvin understands this of the voices or natural cries of animals. All
animated nature is vocal; no living creature is mute or utters unintelligible
sounds: tota igitur naturae series quae est a Deo ordinata, nos ad
distinctionem invitat. The context, however, shows that the reference is to
human speech, therefore the words (ge>nh fwnw~n) should be translated
kinds of languages, Genesis 1:11. And no one of them is without
signification, i.e. inarticulate. The phrase is (fwnh< a]fwnov), a language
which is no language, that is, without significancy, which is the essence of
 307
a language. The illustration contained in this verse goes to prove that
speaking with tongues was to speak in foreign languages. The very point is
that as all languages are significant, so the languages used by those who
spoke with tongues were significant. The difficulty was not in the language
used, but in the ignorance of the hearer. This is still plainer from what
follows.

11. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him
that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh (shall be) a barbarian
unto me.

Therefore, i.e. because the sounds uttered are significant; because the man
does not make a mere senseless noise, but speaks a real language, therefore,
if I know not the meaning of the voice (i.e. the language), I shall stand in
the relation of a foreigner to him and he to me. Otherwise it would not be
so. If a man utters incoherent, inarticulate sounds, which no man living
could understand, that would not make him a foreigner. It might prove him
to be deranged, but not a stranger. The word barbarian means simply one
of another country. All other people, whether civilized or not, were
barbarians to the Greeks, or to the Romans. As ancient civilization came to
be confined to those nations, not to be a Greek or Roman, was to be
uncivilized, and hence barbarian or foreigner came to mean without
civilization. Just as the true religion being confined to the Jews, Gentile
(one not a Jew) came to be synonymous with heathen. In this passage,
however, barbarian means simply foreigner. Comp. Romans 1:14. Acts
28:24. Colossians 3:11.

12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual (gifts), seek that ye

may excel to the edifying of the church.

Even so ye. That is, as the man who speaks a language which I do not
understand, is a foreigner to me and I to him, so are ye. You too are
foreigners to those who do not understand the language which you use. As
all such unintelligible speaking is worthless, the apostle exhorts them to
seek to edify the church. As ye are zealous of spiritual gifts; literally, of
spirits. The most probable explanation of this expression is to be sought
from 12:7, where it is said that “to every one is given a manifestation of
 308
the Spirit.” One and the same Spirit manifests himself in different ways in
different persons; and these different manifestations are called spirits.
Somewhat analogous are the expressions, “spirits of the prophets,” v. 32;
“discernment of spirits,” 12:11; “try the spirits,” 1 John 4:1; and “the
given Spirits of God,” spoken of in the Apocalypse. In all these cases
spirits mean manifestations of the Spirit, or forms under which the Spirit
manifests himself. It is not an unusual metonomy when the effect receives
the name of its cause. Comp. Galatians 5:17, “The spirit lusteth against
the flesh,” where spirit may mean the renewed principle produced by the
Spirit.

Seek that ye may excel (or abound) to the edifying of the church. This is the
common explanation of this clause. But taking the words in their order the
passage reads, ‘Seek (these gifts) with a view to the edification of the
church, in order that ye may excel.’ The former explanation is the more
natural. The end or object to be sought is not that they might excel; that is
not the ultimate object, but the edification of the church. The words
zhtei~te i[na, ktl., therefore, naturally go together. ‘Seek that ye may
abound unto the edification of the church,’ i.e. that ye may possess in rich
abundance those gifts which are useful.

13. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an (unknown) tongue pray that he
may interpret.

This is an inference not only from the preceding verse but from the whole
preceding argument, which was designed to show how useless it is to
speak in a language which no one present understands. The verse admits of
two interpretations. It may mean that the speaker with tongues should
pray for the gift of interpretation; or, that he should pray with the
purpose (i[na) of interpreting what he said. The principal reason for this
latter interpretation is the assumption that the gift of tongues was
exercised only in prayer and praise; in other words, that it consisted in an
ecstatic but unintelligible and unintelligent pouring out of the heart to God.
It is therefore inferred that “to speak with a tongue,” v. 13, and “to pray
with a tongue,” v. 14, mean exactly the same thing; the former being no
more comprehensive than the latter. But this whole assumption is not only
gratuitous but contrary to Scripture. The gift of tongues was, according to
 309
Acts 2:5-11, exercised in declaring the “wonderful works of God.” It is
also apparent from what is said in this chapter, vs. 22-25, and v. 27, that
the gift in question was not confined to acts of devotion. The former
interpretation is therefore to be preferred. ‘Let him pray that (i[na) he may
interpret.’ For this use of i[na after verbs of entreating, etc., we
Robinson’s Greek Lex. p. 352.

14. For if I pray in an (unknown) tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my

understanding is unfruitful.

This is the reason why the speaker with tongues should pray for the gift
of interpretation. Unless he interprets his prayer can do no good; or, as the
same idea is expressed in vs. 16, 17, those who are unlearned cannot join in
it. Praying with a tongue is specified, by way of example, as one mode of
speaking with tongues. Though the general meaning of this verse is thus
plain it is the most difficult verse in the whole chapter. What does Paul
mean by saying, His spirit prays? There are three answers given to this
question.
1. That spirit (my spirit) here means the higher intellectual powers of the
soul, as distinguished from the understanding. This verse and those
which immediately follow, are the principal foundation of the theory
that the speaker with tongues was in a state of ecstatic excitement in
which his understanding was not exercised, so that he knew not what
he said or did. How inconsistent this theory is with the facts of the
case has already been shown. This view of the passage, therefore,
cannot be admitted. Besides, it has already been remarked, that the
Scriptures know nothing of this distinction between the reason and the
understanding.
2. Others say that spirit here means the affections. ‘My feelings find
utterance in prayer, but my understanding is unfruitful.’ This would
give a good sense; but this meaning of the word spirit is of rare
occurrence. In most of the passages quoted by lexicographers as
examples of this use of the term, it really means the Holy Spirit. And
in this whole discussion, spirit is not once used for the feelings.
3. My spirit may mean the Holy Spirit in me; that is, my spiritual gift; or,
my spirit as the organ of the Spirit of God. Each man has his own
 310
spirit, (comp. v. 12) i.e. his own spiritual gift. And Paul means to say,
that when a man prays in an unknown tongue, his spiritual gift is
indeed exercised; in other words, the Holy Spirit is active in him, but
others are not profited.
The speaker with tongues is not to be set down as an enthusiast, or as a
man in a frenzy, or, as the mockers said, as a man full of new wine. He is
really the organ of the Holy Ghost. But as the influence of the Spirit under
which he acts, is not irresistible, he should not exercise his gift where it can
do no good to others. He may pray in silence, v. 28. This interpretation
seems much more in accordance with the use of the word and with the
whole drift of the chapter.

What is meant by saying, my understanding is unfruitful? It may mean,

My understanding is not profited, gains no fruit; that is, I do not
understand what I say. Though the words in themselves may have this
meaning, this interpretation contradicts all those passages which teach that
the speaker with tongues did understand himself. The words, therefore,
must be understood to mean, ‘my understanding produces no fruit,’ i.e. it
does not benefit others. This is in accordance with all that precedes, and
with the uniform use of the word, Ephesians 5:11; Titus 3:14; 2 Peter 1:8;
Matthew 13:22. Paul had, from the beginning, been urging his readers to
have regard to the edification of the church, and he here says, that if he
prayed in an unknown tongue, though he acted under the guidance of the
Spirit, his prayer could not profit others. 26 This interpretation is
confirmed by vs. 16, 17, as remarked above, where the same idea is
expressed by saying, the unlearned could not say Amen to such a prayer.
By his understanding being unfruitful is therefore meant, that others did
not understand what he said.

The great objection to the preceding interpretation is, that my spirit and my
understanding must be explained in the same way. If the latter means my
own understanding, the former must mean my own spirit. The Holy Ghost,
it is said, never is, and cannot be called my spirit, for the very reason that it
is distinct from the spirit of man. The interpretation given above, however,
does not suppose that my spirit means the Holy Spirit as a person, but the
Holy Spirit as a manifestation; it is the way in which the Spirit manifests
 311
himself in me. In other words, it is my spiritual gift. The objection, if it
have any force, bears as much against the conceded meaning of the phrase,
“the spirits of the prophets,” as it does against the explanation just given
of the expression, “my spirit.” The spirits of the prophets means the Holy
Ghost as manifested in the prophets, or the spiritual influence of which
they were the subjects. And that is just the meaning of my spirit in this
passage.

15. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the
understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the
understanding also.

What is it then? i.e. what is the practical conclusion from what has been
said? That conclusion is expressed by Paul’s avowal of his own purpose.
The interpretation of this verse of course depends on that of the preceding.
Accordingly, some say, the meaning is,
1. I will pray not only with the reason, but with the understanding also,
i.e. not only with the higher powers of my nature in exercise, but also
with such a command of the understanding as to be able to comprehend
and to interpret what I say. 27
2. Others say the passage means, ‘I will pray with the heart and with the
understanding; my mind and feelings shall unite in the exercise.’ A very
good sense, but entirely foreign to the context. The sentiment is correct
in itself, but it is not what Paul here says.
3. According to the third interpretation the sense is, ‘I will not only pray
in the exercise of my spiritual gift, but so as to be understood by
others;’ i.e. not only spiritually but intelligibly. If tw|~ noi`,> with the
understanding, may mean, as the moderns say it does, ‘with a view to
interpret’ (Meyer); it certainly may mean, ‘with a view to be
understood.’ That is, this is what is implied and intended in what the
apostle says.
When a man spoke tw~| pneu>mati, with the Spirit, the Spirit was the
principium movens, the moving principle, determining him to speak, and
what to say. When he spake with tw|~ noi`> with the understanding, the
understanding was that controlling principle. These two could be
combined. The man could so speak under the guidance of the Spirit as to
 312
be intelligible to others.

I will sing. The word (ya>llein) means to touch; then to touch the cords of
a stringed instrument, i.e. to play upon it; then to sing or chant in harmony
with such instrument; and then to sing or chant. This last is its New
Testament meaning. It appears from this as well as from other passages,
that singing was from the beginning a part of Christian worship. Pliny,
about forth years later, says, Christianos solitos fuisse canere antelucanos
hymnos Christo.

16, 17. Else, when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that
occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks,
seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest
thanks well, but the other is not edified.

Else, i.e. since in that case. That is, in case you do not speak intelligibly
(tw~| noi`> as well as tw~| pneu>mati). If thou shalt bless with the spirit. That is,
bless God, including praise and thanksgiving. The word translated to give
thanks, in the last clause of the verse expresses the same idea. By the Spirit,
i.e. under the influence of the Spirit, or in the exercise of your spiritual gift,
as in the preceding verse. How shall he that occupieth the place of the
unlearned, i.e. (ijdiw>tou) of a private person. The word is used to
designate one out of office in opposition to officers; and in general, one
who does not possess the distinguishing characteristic of the class to
which it is opposed. It here designates the ungifted in opposition to those
who had the gift of tongues; or rather, it is applicable to any one who was
ignorant of the language used by the speaker. Comp. vs. 23, 24. Acts 4:13;
2 Corinthians 11:6. The context shows that Paul does not refer to laymen
in opposition to church officers; for the officers were just as likely to be
(ijdiw>tai) unlearned as to the language used as others. To fill the place
means to occupy the position; not a particular part of the place of
assembly assigned to laymen, but to sustain the relation to the speaker of
one unacquainted with the tongue which he uses. Say Amen at thy giving of
thanks, i.e. assent or respond to it. Amen is a Hebrew adjective signifying
true or faithful, often used adverbially at the end of a sentence to express
assent to what is said, in the sense of so let it be. In the Jewish synagogue
it was the custom for the people to respond to the prayers by audibly
 313
saying Amen, by which they signified their assent and participation in the
petitions which had been offered. Buxtorf’s Talm. Lexicon, Vitringa de
Synag. Great importance was attached by the Jews to saying Amen.
Schoettgen quotes numerous passages to show to what a superstitious
extreme this was carried. “He who says Amen is greater than he that
blesses.” “Whoever says Amen, to him the gates of Paradise are opened.”
“Whoever says Amen shortly, his days shall be shortened, whoever
answers Amen distinctly and at length, his days shall be lengthened.”
According to Justin Martyr, Apolog. 2. 97, the custom passed over to the
Christian church. This seems also intimated in this passage; the expression
is, “Say the Amen.” i.e. utter the familiar formula of assent. The unlearned
cannot thus assent, since he knows not what thou sayest. Men cannot
assent to what they do not understand, because assent implies the
affirmation of the truth of that to which we assent. It is impossible,
therefore, to join in prayers uttered in an unknown tongue. The Romish
church persists in the use of the Latin language in her public services not
only in opposition to the very idea and intent of worship, but also to the
express prohibition of the Scriptures. For the very thing here prohibited is
praying in public in a language which the people do not understand. It is
indeed said that words may touch the feelings which do not convey any
distinct notions to the mind. But we cannot say Amen to such words, any
more than we can to a flute. Such blind, emotional worship, if such it can
be called, stands at a great remove from the intelligent service demanded by
the apostle. Thou verily givest thanks well, i.e. in a way acceptable to God
and profitable to yourself. This proves that the speaker must have
understood what he said. For if the unintelligible is useless, it must be so
to the speaker as well as to the hearer. If it was necessary that they should
understand in order to be edified, it was no less necessary that he should
understand what he did in order to be benefited. This verse is therefore
decisive against all theories of the gift of tongues which assume that those
who used them did not understand their own words. The Scriptures
recognize no unintelligent worship of God, or any spiritual edification (in
the case of adults) disconnected from the truth; whether that edification be
sought by sounds or signs, whether by prayers or sacraments.

18, 19. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the
church I had rather speak live words with my understanding, that (by my
 314
voice) I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an (unknown)
tongue.

That Paul should give thanks to God that he was more abundantly
endowed with the gift of tongues, if that gift consisted in the ability to
speak in languages which he himself did not understand, and the use of
which, on that assumption, could according to his principle benefit neither
himself nor others, is not to be believed. Equally clear is it from this verse
that to speak with tongues was not to speak in a state of mental
unconsciousness. The common doctrine as to the nature of the gift, is the
only one consistent with this passage. Paul says that although he could
speak in foreign languages more than the Corinthians, he would rather
speak five words with his understanding, i.e. so as to be intelligible, than
ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. In the church, i.e. in the
assembly. That I might teach others also, (kathce>w) to instruct orally,
Galatians 6:6. This shows what is meant by speaking with the
understanding. It is speaking in such a way as to convey instruction.

20. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye

children, but in understanding be men.

There are two characteristics of children; the one a disposition to be

pleased with trifles, or to put a false estimate on things; the other,
comparative innocence. There is a great difference as to every thing evil
between a little child and a full-grown man. The former of these
characteristics the apostle wished the Corinthians to lay aside. The latter
he wished them to cultivate. They had displayed a childish disposition in
estimating the gift of tongues above more useful gifts, and in using it when
it could answer no good purpose. A little child, however, is some thing so
lovely, and is so often held up in Scripture for imitation, that he could not
say, without qualification, Be not children. He therefore says, Be not
children as to understanding; but as to malice, a comprehensive word for
evil dispositions, be ye children. So our Lord said, Except ye be converted,
and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,
Matthew 18:3.
 315
21. In the law it is written, With (men of) other tongues and other lips will I
speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the
Lord.

In the law. The word law signifies that which binds; especially that which
binds the conscience as a rule of faith and practice. That rule may be
revealed in our hearts, in the whole Scriptures, in the Pentateuch, or in the
moral law; and hence the word as used in Scripture may refer to any one of
these forms in which the will of God is made known; or it may include
them all. The context must decide its meaning in each particular case. Here,
as in John 10:34. Romans 3:20, and elsewhere, the reference is not to the
Pentateuch, but to the Old Testament. The passage quoted is Isaiah 28:11,
12, which in our version stands thus, “For with stammering lips, and
another tongue, will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the
rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing:
yet they would not hear.” The apostle gives the 11th verse in a free
translation, and the concluding words of the 12th. He does not quote the
passage as having any prophetic reference to the events in Corinth; much
less does he give an allegorical interpretation of it in order to make it a
condemnation of speaking with tongues. It is a simple reference to a signal
event in the Jewish history from which the Corinthians might derive a
useful lesson. The Jews had refused to hear the prophets speaking their
own language, and God threatened to bring upon them a people whose
language they could not understand. This was a judgment; a mark of
displeasure designed as a punishment and not for their conversion. From
this the Corinthians might learn that it was no mark of the divine favor to
have teachers whose language they could not understand. They were
turning a blessing into a curse. The gift of tongues was designed, among
other things, to facilitate the propagation of the gospel, by enabling
Christians to address people of various nations each in his own language.
Used for this purpose it was a blessing; but to employ it for the sake of
display, in addressing those who could not understand the language
employed, was to make it a curse. The Spirit of God often confers gifts on
men, and then holds them responsible for the way in which they exercise
them.
 316
22. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them
that believe not: but prophesying (serveth) not for them that believe not, but
for them which believe.

There are two inaccuracies in this version which obscure the sense. The
first is the introduction of the word serveth after prophesying. The clauses
are parallel. Tongues are for a sign to one class, and prophesying to
another. Nothing need be supplied; what is implied is, that prophesying is
for a sign. The introduction of the word serveth is not only unnecessary,
but contrary to the context. The second inaccuracy is expressing the force
of the datives (pisteu>ousi and ajpi>s toiv) by to in the first member of
the verse, and by for in the second member. There is no reason for this
change. The relation expressed is the same in both cases. ‘Tongues are for
the one, prophesying are to the other;’ or, ‘Tongues are for a sign to the
one, and prophesying to the other.’ The connection between this verse and
what precedes is indicated by the word wherefore, or so that. The
inference may be drawn either from the immediately preceding clause, viz.,
“For all that they will not hear me, saith the Lord;” or from the historical
fact referred to in the whole verse. If the former, then the design of the
apostle is to show that as teaching the Hebrews by men of other tongues
did not render them obedient; so speaking in other tongues would not
profit the Corinthians. If the latter, then the design is to show, that as
sending foreigners among the Hebrews was a mark of God’s displeasure,
so speaking in the Christian assemblies in foreign languages would be a
curse and not a blessing. The latter view is demanded by the whole
context.

The inference from the preceding verse is that tongues are a sign not to the
believing but to the unbelieving, and prophesying just the reverse. This
difficult verse is variously explained.
1. The word sign is taken in the sense of mark or proof, as when it is
said, “the signs of an apostle,” 2 Corinthians 12:12, that is, the tokens
by which an apostle may be known. Comp. Luke 2:12; 2
Thessalonians 3:17. The meaning of the passage would then be,
‘Tongues are a proof that those among whom they are used are not
believers, but unbelievers; and prophesying is a proof that they are
believers, and not unbelievers.’ But when the word is used in this
 317
sense, the thing of which it is a sign is put in the genitive. It is a sign of,
not to or for.
2. It may mean a prodigy or wonder. This is a very common sense of the
word, as in the familiar phrase, “signs and wonders.” The meaning is
then commonly made to be, ‘Tongues are a wonder designed not for
the benefit of believers, but for unbelievers; and on the other hand,
prophesy is a wonder designed not for the benefit of unbelievers, but
for the benefit of believers.’ But this is neither true nor in accordance
with v. 24. It is not true that the gift of tongues was designed
exclusively for the conversion of unbelievers. Why should not that gift
be exercised for the edification, as well as for the conversion of men?
Their conversion would not enable them to understand the native
language of the apostles. Much less is it true that prophecy was
designed exclusively for the edification of believers. The prophets and
apostles were sent forth for the conversion of the world. And in v. 24
the conversion of unbelievers is specified as the very effect to be
anticipated from the use of this gift. A still more decisive objection to
this interpretation is, that it does not give the true conclusion from the
preceding verse. The nature of the premises must decide the nature of
the inference. It is not a fair inference from the fact that although God
sent foreigners to teach the Hebrews they still continued disobedient,
that foreign tongues were designed for the conversion of unbelievers.
The very opposite conclusion would naturally follow from that fact.
3. Sign may here mean a warning or sign of punishment. ‘Tongues are a
warning, designed not for believers, but for unbelievers,’ who are
understood to be, not those merely without faith, but positive infidels,
or obstinate rejectors of the truth. To this, however, it may be
objected, that the word unbeliever (a]pistov) is used in v. 24 for those
without faith, and that to assume a change of meaning in the same
context is most unnatural. A still more serious objection is, that this
interpretation cannot be carried out. It cannot be said that prophecy is
a warning designed for believers. The two members of the sentence are
so related that whatever is said of the gift of tongues, must be true,
mutandis mutatis, of prophecy. If the one be a punishment designed
for unbelievers, the other must be a punishment designed for believers.
4. The most satisfactory explanation is to take sign in the general sense of
 318
any indication of the divine presence. ‘Tongues are a manifestation of
God, having reference, not to believers, but to unbelievers; and
prophecy is a similar manifestation, having reference, not to
unbelievers, but to believers.’ By tongues, however, is not to be
understood the gift of tongues, but, as v. 21 requires, foreign languages,
i.e. languages unknown to the hearers. The meaning is, that when a
people are disobedient, God sends them teachers whom they cannot
understand; when they are obedient, he sends them prophets speaking
their own language. This is the natural conclusion from the premises
contained in v. 21. When the Hebrews were disobedient God sent
foreigners among them; when obedient, he sent them prophets.
Wherefore, i.e. hence it follows, that unintelligible teachers are for the
unbelieving; those who can be understood are for the believing.
This view is also consistent with what follows, which is designed to show
that speaking in a language which those who hear cannot understand is the
cause of evil; whereas speaking intelligibly is the source of good. It must be
remembered that it is not the gift of tongues of which the apostle speaks,
but speaking to people in a language which they do not understand. And
therefore this interpretation does not imply any disparagement of the gift
in question. When used aright, that is, when employed in addressing those
to whom the language used was intelligible, it was prophecy. The
obscurity of the passage arises in a great measure from the ambiguity of
the expression to speak with tongues. It means to speak in foreign or
unknown languages. But a language may be said to be unknown either in
reference to the speaker or to the hearer. It is said to be unknown to the
speaker, if not previously acquired; and it is said to be unknown to the
hearers if they do not understand it. The apostle uses the expression
sometimes in one sense and sometimes in the other. When it is said that
the apostles, on the day of Pentecost, spake with tongues, it means that
they used languages which they had never learned; but when Paul says he
would rather speak five words intelligibly than ten thousand words with a
tongue, he means in a language unknown to the hearers. Speaking with
tongues in the one sense, was a grace and a blessing; in the other sense, it
was a folly and a curse. It was of speaking with tongues in the latter sense
the apostle treats in these verses.
 319
23. It therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all
speak with tongues, and there come in (those that are) unlearned, or
unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

It therefore. The inference from the preceding representation is, that

speaking in languages not understood by the people is undesirable and
useless. To show the justness of this conclusion the apostle supposes the
case which follows. If the whole church be come together in one place.
That is, if all the Christians of the place, or the whole congregation, be
assembled. This is one of the conditions of the hypothesis. Another is,
that all should speak with tongues. This does not necessarily imply either
that all present had the gift of tongues, or that all who possessed the gift
spoke at one and the same time, although from vs. 27 and 30 it may be
inferred that this was sometimes done. All that the words here require is
that all who spoke used foreign languages. To speak with tongues must
mean to speak in languages unknown to the hearers. The third condition of
the case supposed is, that unlearned and unbelievers should come into the
meeting. Who are the (ijdiw~tai), the unlearned here intended?
1. Some say they were Christians ignorant of the gift of tongues, because
they are distinguished from unbelievers, or those not Christians.
2. Others say that the unlearned are those who were ignorant of
Christianity, and the (a]pistoi) unbelieving are those who knew and
rejected it, i.e. infidels. This is giving to the word a force which it has
not in itself, and which the context does not give it.
3. The simplest explanation is that the unlearned were those ignorant of
the language spoken, and the unbelieving those not Christians, whether
Jews or Gentiles. Such persons were doubtless often led, from
curiosity or other motives, to attend the Christian assemblies. The two
classes (the unlearned and the unbelieving) are not so distinguished that
the same person might not belong to both classes.
The same persons were either ijdiw~tai or a]pistoi, according to the
aspect under which they were viewed. Viewed in relation to the languages
spoken, they were unlearned; viewed in relation to Christianity, they were
unbelievers. The apostle asks what impression such persons, in the case
supposed, would receive? Would they not say ye are mad? John 12:20.
Acts 12:15; 26:24.
 320

24, 25. But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or
(one) unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the
secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on (his) face he will
worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

This is another part of the inference from what was said in vs. 21, 22.
Speaking in languages unknown to the hearers is not adapted to do good;
speaking intelligibly is suited to produce the happiest effects. If all
prophesy, i.e. if all the speakers speak under the guidance of the Spirit in a
language which the hearers can understand. If one that believeth not, or one
unlearned From these words it is manifest that the unlearned were not
Christians as distinguished from Jews or Gentiles here called unbelievers,
for the same effect is said to be produced on both. The unlearned were
therefore as much the subjects of conversion as the unbelieving. The
meaning is, if any person, either ignorant or destitute of faith, should come
in, he would be convinced by all. That is, what he heard from all would
carry conviction to his mind. He would be convinced of the truth of what
he heard; convinced of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, John 16:8;
convinced that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Acts 9:20,
22; and that it is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus
Christ is come into the world to save sinners, 1 Timothy 1:15. He is
judged of all, i.e. examined, searched into (ajnakri>netai); for the word of
God is a discerner (kritiko>v ) of the thoughts and intents of the heart,
Hebrews 4:12. The result of this searching examination is, that the secrets
of his heart are made manifest; that is, they are revealed to himself. His
real character and moral state, with regard to which he was before ignorant,
are made known to him. The effect of this is humility, contrition,
self-condemnation, and turning unto God. This is expressed by saying, so
i.e. in this condition of a convinced sinner who has been brought to the
knowledge of himself, falling down on his face, he will worship God. The
first step in religion is entire self-abasement; such a conviction of sin, i.e.
of guilt and pollution, as shall lead to self-condemnation and
self-abhorrence, and to a complete renunciation of all dependence on our
own righteousness and strength. When the soul is thus humbled God
reveals himself sooner or later, in mercy, manifesting himself as reconciled
in Jesus Christ; and then we worship him. This expresses reverence, love
 321
and confidence. It is the return of the soul to the favor and fellowship of
God. One who has had such an experience cannot keep it to himself. The
apostle therefore describes the convert as declaring, i.e. proclaiming aloud
that God is in you of a truth. “With the heart man believeth unto
righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,”
Romans 10:10. It is not enough to believe the truth, it must be publicly
professed; because confession is the natural fruit of faith. ‘When there is a
proper apprehension of the value of the truth, and a sincere appropriation
of the promises of God to ourselves, there will be the desire to
acknowledge his goodness and to proclaim the truth to others. The thing
acknowledged is, that God is in you, i.e. that Christianity is divine; that
Christians are not deluded fanatics, but the true children of God, in whom
he dwells by his Spirit. The convert therefore joins himself to them to
share their fate, to take part in whatever of reproach or persecution falls to
their lot. This confession is made with confidence. Declaring that God is in
you of a truth. It is not a mere conjecture, but a firm conviction, founded on
experience, i.e. on the demonstration of the Spirit, 2:4.

SPECIAL DIRECTIONS AS TO THE MODE OF CONDUCTING

THEIR PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES. VS. 26-40.

The apostle concludes this chapter with certain practical directions derived
from the principles which he had laid down. He neither denied the reality
of the extraordinary gifts with which the Corinthians were so richly
endowed, nor forbade their exercise. He only enjoined that mutual
edification should be the end aimed at, v. 26. With regard to those having
the gift of tongues, he directed that not more than two, or at most three,
should speak, and that in succession, while one interpreted. But in case no
interpreter was present, there was to be no speaking with tongues, vs. 27,
28. Of the prophets also only two or three were to speak, and the rest
were to sit in judgment on what was said. In case a new revelation was
made to one of the prophets, he was not to interrupt the speaker, but wait
until he had concluded; or the one was to give way to the other. Both were
not to speak at the same time, for God did not approve of confusion. As
the influence of which the prophets were the subjects did not destroy their
self-control, there could be no difficulty in obeying this injunction, vs.
29-33. Women were not to speak in public; but to seek instruction at
 322
home. This prohibition rests on the divinely established subordination of
the women, and on the instinct of propriety, vs. 34, 35. The Corinthians
were not to act in this matter as though they were the oldest or the only
church, v. 36. The apostle requires all classes, no matter how highly gifted,
to regard his directions as the commands of Christ, vs. 37 38. He sums up
the chapter in two sentences.
1. Earnestly to seek the gift of prophecy, and not to prohibit the exercise
of the gift of tongues.
2. To do all things with decency and order.

26. How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath
a Psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an
interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

How is it then? i.e. as in v. 15, What is the conclusion from what has been
said? What is the condition of things among you? How, in point of fact, do
you conduct your public worship? When ye come together. That is, as
often as ye come together. Every one of you hath, etc. Every one is used
distributively; one has this and another that. A psalm, a song of praise to
God. This can hardly mean one of the Psalms of the Old Testament but
something prepared or suggested for the occasion. One was impelled by
the Spirit to pour forth his heart in a song of praise. Comp. v. 15. Hath a
doctrine, i.e. comes prepared to expound some doctrine. Hath a tongue, i.e.
is able and impelled to deliver an address or to pray in an unknown tongue.
Hath a revelation, i.e. as a prophet he has received a revelation from God
which he desires to communicate. Hath an interpretation, i.e. is prepared
to give the interpretation of some discourse previously delivered in an
unknown tongue. This passage, and indeed the whole chapter, presents a
lively image of an early Christian assembly. Although there were officers
in every church, appointed to conduct the services and especially to teach,
yet as the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit were not confined to them or to
any particular class, any member present who experienced the working of
the Spirit in any of its extraordinary manifestations, was authorized to use
and exercise his gift. Under such circumstances confusion could hardly fail
to ensue. That such disorder did prevail in the public assemblies in Corinth
is clear enough from this chapter. To correct this evil is the apostle’s
 323
design in this whole passage. It was only so long as the gifts of tongues, of
prophecy, of miracles, and others of a like kind continued in the church
that the state of things here described prevailed. Since those gifts have
ceased, no one has the right to rise in the church under the impulse of his
own mind to take part in its services. The general rule which the apostle
lays down, applicable to all gifts alike, is that every thing should be done
unto edifying. That is, that the edification of the church should be the
object aimed at in the exercise of these gifts. It was not enough that a man
felt himself the subject of a divine influence; or that acting under it would
be agreeable or even profitable to himself, he must sit in silence unless the
exercise of his gift would benefit the brethren as a worshipping assembly.

27. If any man speak in an (unknown) tongue, (let it be) by two, or at the
most (by) three, and (that) by course; and let one interpret.

As to the use of the gift of tongues, the directions were that only two or
three having that gift should speak; that they were not to speak together,
but in succession; and that one should interpret what the others said.

28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let
him speak to himself, and to God.

If neither the speaker himself, nor any other person present, have the gift
of interpretation, the former was to keep silence in the church, i.e. in the
public assembly. And let him speak to himself, and to God, or, for himself,
and for God. That is, let him commune silently with God in the exercise of
his gift. As, according to Paul, all true worship is intelligent, it is evident
that if in the exercise of the gift of tongues, there was communion with
God, the understanding could not have been in abeyance. In that gift, not
only the words, but also the thoughts and the accompanying emotion were
communicated or excited by the Spirit. Those having that gift spake as the
Spirit gave them utterance, Acts 2:4.

29, 30. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge. If (any
thing) be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

The number of prophets who were to speak at any one meeting was also
 324
limited to two or three. The others were to judge, i.e. exercise the gift of
“the discerning of spirits,” 12:10. From this passage it may be inferred that
this latter gift was a concomitant of the gift of prophecy; for the other
prophets, i.e. those who did not speak were to sit in judgment on what
was said, in order to decide whether those claiming to be prophets were
really inspired. The case, however, might occur that a communication from
the Spirit might be made to one prophet while another was speaking. What
was to be done men? As it was contrary to order for two to speak at the
same time, the one speaking must either at once stop, or the receiver of the
new revelation must wait until his predecessor had concluded his
discourse. The imperative form of the expression (oJ prw~tov siga>tw), let
the first be silent, is in favor of the former view. This would suppose that
the fact of a new communication being made, indicated that it was entitled
to be heard at once. There are two reasons, however, which may be urged
for the second view. The interruption of a speaker was itself disorderly,
and therefore contrary to the whole drift of the apostle’s directions; and
secondly, what follows is most naturally understood as assigning the
reason why the receiver of the new revelation should wait. The meaning
may be, ‘Let the first be silent before the other begins.’

31. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be
comforted.

This verse assigns the reason why two prophets should not speak at the
same time. They could all have the opportunity of speaking one by one.
Not indeed at the same meeting, for he had before limited the number of
speakers to two or three for any one occasion. That all may learn, and all
may be comforted. This is the end to be attained by their all speaking. The
discourse of one might suit the wants of some hearers; and that of another
might be adapted to the case of others. Thus all hearers would receive
instruction and consolation. The latter word (consolation), however, is not
so comprehensive as the original, which means not only to comfort, but
also to exhort and to admonish.

32. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
 325
This verse is connected by and to the preceding as containing an additional
reason for the injunction in v. 31. ‘You need not speak together, because
you can all have the opportunity of speaking successively, and you are
not compelled to speak by any irresistible impulse.’ The spirits of the
prophets. The word spirit is used here (comp. vs. 12, 14, 15) for the divine
influence under which the prophets spoke. That influence was not of such
a nature as to destroy the self-control of those who were its subjects. It
did not throw them into a state of frenzy analogous to that of a heathen
pythoness. The prophets of God were calm and self-possessed. This being
the case, there was no necessity why one should interrupt another, or why
more than one should speak at the same time. The one speaking could stop
when he pleased; and the one who received a revelation could wait as long
as he pleased. The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, i.e.
under their control. According to another interpretation the spirits of the
prophets means their own spirits (or minds), considered as the organs of
the Holy Spirit. But this is contrary to the use of the word in the context;
and moreover it is inconsistent with the sense assigned to the word by the
advocates of this interpretation. They say that spirit means the higher
powers of the mind in distinction from the understanding. In this sense
every man, whether the subject of divine influence or not, has a spirit. In
other words, according to their theory it is not because the higher powers
of the mind are the organs of the Spirit of God that they are called spirits.
It is therefore inconsistent to assign that reason for the use of the word
here. The interpretation above given of this verse is the one commonly
adopted. Many commentators, however, understand the apostle to say,
that the spirits of the prophets are subject to one another, i.e. to other
prophets; and therefore if one is speaking he should yield to another who
wishes to speak. This idea is not suited to the context. It would suggest
merely a reason why one ought to yield to the other. What the apostle
says and wishes to prove is, that one can yield to the other. A prophet
was not forced to speak by the spirit which he had received.

33. For God is not (the author) of confusion, but of peace, as in all
churches of the saints.

This is the reason why the spirits of the prophets must be assumed to be
subject to the prophets. They are from God; but God is not a God of
 326
disorder or of commotion, but of peace. Therefore every spirit which is
from him, must be capable of control. He never impels men to act contrary
to the principles which he has ordained. If he wills order to prevail in the
church, he never impels men to be disorderly. This is a truth of wide
application. When men pretend to be influenced by the Spirit of God in
doing what God forbids, whether in disturbing the peace and order of the
church, by insubordination, violence or abuse, or in any other way, we
may be sure that they are either deluded or impostors.

34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
unto them to speak; but (they are commanded) to be under obedience, as
also saith the law.

The words as in all the churches of the saints, if connected with verse 33,
contain a proof of what had just been said. ‘I may appeal to all the
churches of the saints in proof that God is the God not of commotion, but
of peace.’ Most commentators, however, connect them with v. 34. ‘As in
all the churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches;
for it is not permitted to them to speak; but they are commanded to be
under obedience, as also saith the law.’ The reasons for preferring this
connection are,
1. That verse 33 has an appropriate conclusion in the words “God is not
a God of confusion but of peace.”
2. The words as in all the churches of the saints, if connected with v. 33,
do not give a pertinent sense. The apostle would be made to prove a
conceded and undeniable truth by an appeal to the authority or
experience of the church.
3. If connected with v. 34, this passage is parallel to 11:16, where the
custom of the churches in reference to the deportment of women in
public is appealed to as authoritative. The sense is thus pertinent and
good. ‘As is the case in all other Christian churches, let your women
keep silence in the public assemblies.’ The fact that in no Christian
church was public speaking permitted to women was itself a strong
proof that it was unchristian, i.e. contrary to the spirit of Christianity.
Paul, however, adds to the prohibition the weight of apostolic
authority, and not of that only but also the authority of reason and of
 327
Scripture. It is not permitted to them to speak. The speaking intended is
public speaking, and especially in the church.
In the Old Testament it had been predicted that “Your sons and your
daughters shall prophesy;” a prediction which the apostle Peter quotes as
verified on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:17; and in Acts 21:9 mention is
made of four daughters of Philip who prophesied. The apostle himself
seems to take for granted, in 11:5, that women might receive and exercise
the gift of prophecy. It is therefore only the public exercise of the gift that
is prohibited. The rational ground for this prohibition is that it is contrary
to the relation of subordination in which the woman stands to the man that
she appear as a public teacher. Both the Jews and Greeks adopted the
same rule; and therefore the custom, which the Corinthians seemed
disposed to introduce, was contrary to established usage. The scriptural
ground is expressed in the words as also saith the law, i.e. the will of God
as made known in the Old Testament. There, as well as in the New
Testament, the doctrine that women should be in subjection is clearly
revealed.

35. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home:
for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

The desire for knowledge in women is not to be repressed, and the

facilities for its acquisition are not to be denied them. The refinement and
delicacy of their sex, however, should be carefully preserved. They may
learn all they wish to know without appearing before the public. For it is a
shame for women to speak in the church. The word used is aijscro>v which
properly means ugly, deformed. It is spoken of any thing which excites
disgust. As the peculiar power and usefulness of women depend on their
being the objects of admiration and affection, any thing which tends to
excite the opposite sentiments should for that reason be avoided.

36. What! came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

That is, Are you the mother church? or are you the only church? The word
of God here means the gospel. Paul means to ask, whether the gospel took
its rise in Corinth? The disregard which the people of that church
manifested for the customs of their sister churches seemed to evince an
 328
assuming and arrogant temper. They acted as though they were entitled to
be independent, if not to prescribe the law to others. Paul takes the
authority of the church for granted. He assumes that any thing contrary to
the general sentiment and practice of the people of God is wrong. This he
does because he understands by the church the body of Christ, those in
whom the Holy Spirit dwells, and whose character and conduct are
controlled and governed by his influence.

37. If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him

acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of
the Lord.

If any man think, etc. That is, If any man, with or without just reason,
assumes to be a prophet, i.e. inspired; or spiritual, i.e. the possessor of any
gift of the Spirit, let him prove himself what he claims to be by submitting
to my authority. Here, as in 1 John 4:6, (“He that knoweth God, heareth
us; he that is not of God, heareth not us,”) submission to the infallible
authority of the apostles is made the test of a divine mission and even of
conversion. This must be so. If the apostles were the infallible organs of
the Holy Ghost, to disobey them in any matter of faith or practice is to
refuse to obey God. The inference which Romanists draw from this fact is,
that as the apostleship is a permanent office in the church, and as the
prelates are the bearers of that office, therefore to refuse submission in
matters of faith or practice to the bishops is a clear proof that we are not
of God. This is the chain with which Rome binds the nations to her car
which she drives whithersoever she wills. The inference which Protestants
draw from the fact in question is, that as we have the infallible teaching of
the prophets and apostles in the Bible, therefore any man who does not
conform in faith and practice to the Scriptures cannot be of God. This is
the rule by which Protestants try all who claim to have a divine
commission. It is nothing to them what their ecclesiastical descent may be.
He that heareth not the Scriptures, is not of God. The things which I write.
There is not only no reason for confining these words, as some do, to the
preceding verse, but every reason against it. It is not merely for the
prohibition against women speaking in the church for which the apostle
claims divine authority. The specification of prophets and spiritual
persons shows that the reference is primarily to the whole contents of this
 329
chapter. All the directions which he had given with respect to the exercise
of spiritual gifts were of divine authority. What is true, however, of this
chapter, is no less true of all apostolical instructions; because they all rest
on the same foundation. Are the commandments of the Lord, i.e. of Christ,
because he is the person known in the Christian church as Lord. The
continued influence of Christ by the Spirit over the minds of his apostles,
which is a divine prerogative, is here assumed or asserted.

38. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

That is, if any man be ignorant or refuses to acknowledge the divine

authority of my instructions, let him be ignorant. Paul would neither
attempt to convince him, nor waste time in disputing the point. Where the
evidence of any truth is abundant and has been clearly presented, those
who reject it should be left to act on their own responsibility. Further
disputation can do no good.

39. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with
tongues.

Prophecy and the gift of tongues are the two gifts of which this chapter
treats. The former is to be preferred to the latter. The one is to be coveted,
i.e. earnestly desired and sought after; the exercise of the other, even in
Christian assemblies, was not to be prohibited; provided, as stated above,
any one be present who possessed the gift of interpretation.

40. Let all things be done decently and in order.

Decently, i.e. in such a way as not to offend against propriety. The

adjective, the adverbial form of which is here used, means well-formed,
comely; that which excites the pleasing emotion of beauty. The exhortation
therefore is, so to conduct their worship that it may be beautiful; in other
words, so as to make a pleasing impression on all who are right-minded.
And in order (kata< ta>xin), not tumultuously as in a mob, but as in a
well-ordered army, where every one keeps his place, and acts at the proper
time and in the proper way. So far as external matters are concerned, these
are the two principles which should regulate the conduct of public
 330
worship. The apostle not only condemns any church acting independently
of other churches, but also any member of a particular church acting from
his own impulses, without regard to others. The church as a whole, and in
every separate congregation, should be a harmonious, well-organized body.
 331

CHAPTER XV.
THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.

In treating this subject the apostle first proves the fact of Christ’s
resurrection, vs. 1-11. He thence deduces, first, the possibility, and then the
certainty of the resurrection of his people, vs. 12-34. He afterwards teaches
the nature of the resurrection, so far as to show that the doctrine is not liable
to the objections which had been brought against it, vs. 35-58.

THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST AS SECURING THE

RESURRECTION OF HIS PEOPLE VS. 1-34.

That certain false teachers in Corinth denied the resurrection of the dead is
plain, not only from the course of argument here adopted but from the
explicit statement in v. 12. Who these persons were, and what were the
grounds of their objections, can only be conjectured from the nature of the
apostolic argument. The most common opinion is that the objectors were
converted Sadducees. The only reason for this opinion is that the
Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection, and that Paul, as appears
from Acts 24:6-9 and 26:6-8, had been before brought into collision with
them on this subject. The objections to this view are of no great weight. It
is said that such was the hostility of the Sadducees to the gospel that it is
not probable any of their number were among the converts to Christianity.
The case of Paul himself proves that the bitterest enemies could, by the
grace of God, be converted into friends. It is further objected that Paul
could not, in argument with Sadducees, make the resurrection of Christ the
basis of his proof. But he does not assume that fact as conceded, but
proves it by an array of the testimony by which it was supported. Others
suppose that the opponents of the doctrine were Epicureans. There is,
however, no indication of their peculiar opinions in the chapter. In v. 32
Epicurean carelessness and indulgence are represented as the consequence,
not the cause, of the denial of the resurrection. Nothing more definite can
be arrived at on this point than the conjecture that the false teachers in
question were men of Grecian culture. In Acts 17:32 it is said of the
 332
Athenians that “some mocked” when they heard Paul preach the doctrine
of the resurrection. From the character of the objections answered in the
latter part of the chapter, vs. 35-58, it is probable that the objections urged
against the doctrine were founded on the assumption that a material
organization was unsuited to the future state. It is not unlikely that
oriental philosophy, which assumed that matter was the source and seat of
evil, had produced an effect on the minds of these Corinthian skeptics as
well as on the Christians of Colosse. The decision of the question as to
what particular class of persons the opponents of the doctrine of the
resurrection belonged, happily is of no importance in the interpretation of
the apostle’s argument. As in 2 Timothy 2:17, 18 he speaks of Hymeneus
and Philetus as teaching that the resurrection was passed already, it is
probable that these errorists in Corinth also refused to acknowledge any
other than a spiritual resurrection.

After reminding the Corinthians that the doctrine of the resurrection was a
primary principle of the gospel, which he had preached to them, and on
which their salvation depended, vs. 1-3, he proceeds to assert and prove
the fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day. This event had
been predicted in the Old Testament. Its actual occurrence is proved,
1. By Christ appearing after his resurrection, first to Peter and then to the
twelve.
2. By his appearing to upward of five hundred brethren at one time, most
of whom were still alive.
3. By a separate appearance to James.
4. And then again to all the apostles.
5. Finally by his appearance to Paul himself. There never was a historical
event established on surer evidence than that of the resurrection of
Christ, vs. 4-8 This fact, therefore, was included in the preaching of all
the apostles, and in the faith of all Christians, v. 11. But if this be so,
how can the doctrine of the resurrection be denied by any who pretend
to be Christians? To deny the resurrection of the dead is to deny the
resurrection of Christ; and to deny the resurrection of Christ, is to
subvert the gospel, vs. 12-14; and also to make the apostles false
witnesses, v. 15. If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain, we are yet in
our sins, those dead in Christ are perished, and all the hopes of
 333
Christians are destroyed, vs. 16-19. But if Christ be risen, then his
people will also rise, because he rose as a pledge of their resurrection.
As Adam was the cause of death, so Christ is the cause of life; Adam
secured the death of all who are in him, and Christ secures the life of all
who are in him, vs. 20-22.
Although the resurrection of Christ secures the resurrection of his people,
the two events are not contemporaneous. Christ rose first, his people are
to rise when he comes the second time. Then is to be the final
consummation, when Christ shall deliver up his providential kingdom as
mediator to the Father, after all his enemies are subdued, vs. 23, 24. It is
necessary that Christ’s dominion over the universe, to which he was
exalted after his resurrection, should continue until his great work of
subduing or restraining evil was accomplished. When that is done, then the
Son (the Theantropos, the Incarnate Logos), will be subject to the Father,
and God as God, and not as Mediator, reign supreme, 25-28.

Besides the arguments already urged, there are two other considerations
which prove the truth or importance of the doctrine of the resurrection.
The first is, “the baptism for the dead” (whatever that means) prevailing in
Corinth, assumes the truth of the doctrine, v. 29. The other is, the intimate
connection between this doctrine and that of a future state is such, that if
the one be denied, the other cannot, in a Christian sense, be maintained. If
there be no resurrection, there is for Christians no hereafter, and they may
act on the principle, “Let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die,” vs.
30-32. The apostle concludes this part of the subject by warning his
readers against the corrupting influence of evil associations. Whence it is
probable that the denial of the doctrine had already produced the evil
effects, referred to among those who rejected it, vs. 33, 34.

1, 2. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached

unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also
ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto you, unless
ye have believed in vain.

There is no connection between this and the preceding chapter. The

particle de> , rendered moreover, indicates the introduction of a new
subject. I declare unto (gnwri>zw), literally, I make known to you, as
 334
though they had never heard it before. ‘Moreover, brethren, I proclaim to
you the gospel.’ This interpretation is more consistent with the
signification of the word, and more impressive than the rendering adopted
by many, ‘I remind you.’ Comp. however, 12:3; 2 Corinthians 8:1. Of this
gospel Paul says,
1. That he had preached it.
2. They had received it, i.e. embraced it as true.
3. That they then professed it. They still stood firm in their adherence to
the truth. It was not the Corinthians as a body, but only “some among
them,” v. 12, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection.
4. That by it they are saved. The present tense is used to express either
the certainty of the event, or the idea that believers are in this life
partakers of salvation. They are already saved. There is to them no
condemnation. They are renewed and made partakers of spiritual life.
Their salvation, however, is conditioned on their perseverance. If they do
not persevere, they will not only fail of the consummation of the work of
salvation, but it becomes manifest that they never were justified or
renewed. ‘Ye are saved (eij kate>cete) if ye hold fast.’ The word does not
mean, if ye keep in memory. It simply means, if ye hold fast; whether that
be by a physical holding fast with the hand, or a retaining in the memory,
or a retaining in faith, depends on the connection. Here it is evident that
the condition of salvation is not retaining in the memory, but persevering
in the faith. ‘The gospel saves you,’ says the apostle, ‘if you hold fast the
gospel which I preached unto you.’

The only difficulty in the passage relates to the words ti>ni lo>gw|, literally,
with what discourse; which in our version is expressed by the word what.
This may express the true sense. The idea is, ‘If you hold fast to the
gospel as I preached it to you.’ The principal objection to this
interpretation is the position of the words. The order in which they stand
is, ‘With what discourse I preached unto you if ye hold fast.’ The
interpretation just mentioned reverses this order. This clause is therefore
by many connected with the first words of the chapter. ‘I bring to your
knowledge, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which ye
received, wherein ye stand, by which ye are saved, (I bring to your
 335
knowledge, I say,) how, qua ratione, I preached, if ye hold fast.’ This,
however, breaks the connection. It is, therefore, better to consider the
words ti>ni lo>gw| as placed first for the sake of emphasis. ‘You are saved if
you hold fast (the gospel) as I preached it to you.’ Unless ye have believed
in vain. The word eijkh~, in vain, may mean either without cause, Galatians
2:18, or without effect, i.e. to no purpose, Galatians 3:4; 4:11; If the former,
then Paul means to say, ‘Unless ye believed without evidence, i.e. had no
ground for your faith.’ If the latter, the meaning is, ‘Unless your faith is
worthless.’ The clause may be connected with the preceding words, ‘If ye
hold fast, which ye do, or will do, unless ye believed without cause.’ The
better connection is with the words ye are saved, etc. ‘Ye are saved, if ye
persevere, unless indeed faith is worthless.’ If, as the errorists in Corinth
taught, there is no resurrection, Paul says, v. 14, our faith is vain; it is an
empty, worthless thing. So here he says, the gospel secures salvation,
unless faith be of no account.

3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures:

For introduces the explanation of ‘what he had preached.’ I delivered unto

you first of all; first, not in reference to time; nor first to the Corinthians,
which would not be historically true, as Paul did not preach first at
Corinth; but ejn prw> toiv means, among the first, or principal things. The
death of Christ for our sins and his resurrection were therefore the great
facts on which Paul insisted as the foundation of the gospel. Which also I
received, i.e. by direct revelation from Christ himself. Comp. 11:23.
Galatians 1:12. “I did not receive it (the gospel) from man, neither was I
taught it; but by revelation of Jesus Christ.” The apostle, therefore, could
speak with infallible confidence, both as to what the gospel is and as to its
truth. That Christ died for our sins, i.e. as a sacrifice or propitiation for our
sins. Comp. Romans 3:23-26. Some commentators remark that as uJpe<r
aJmartiw~n, for sin, cannot mean in the place of sin, therefore uJpe<r hJmw~n
for us, cannot mean in our place. This remark, however, has no more force
in reference to the Greek preposition, uJpe>r, than it has in relation to the
English preposition, for. Whether the phrase, to die for any one, means to
die for his benefit, or in his place, is determined by the connection. It may
mean either or both; and the same is true of the corresponding scriptural
 336
phrase.

According to the Scriptures, i.e. the fact that the Messiah was to die as a
propitiation for sin had been revealed in the Old Testament. That the death
of Christ as an atoning sacrifice was predicted by the law and the prophets
is the constant doctrine of the New Testament. Our Lord reproved his
disciples for not believing what the prophets had spoken on this subject,
Luke 24:25, 26. Paul protested before Festus, that in preaching the gospel
he had said “none other things than those which Moses and the prophets
say should come; that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first
that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and
to the Gentiles,” Acts 26:22, 23. He assured the Romans that his gospel
was “witnessed (to) by the law and the prophets,” Romans 3:21. The
epistle to the Hebrews is an exposition of the whole Mosaic service as a
prefiguration of the office and work of Christ. And the fifty-third chapter
of Isaiah is the foundation of all the New Testament exhibitions of a
suffering and atoning Messiah. Paul and all other faithful ministers of the
gospel, therefore, teach that atonement for sin, by the death of Christ, is
the great doctrine of the whole word of God.

4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according
to the Scriptures:

There are two things taught in this, as in the preceding verse. First, the
truth of the facts referred to; and secondly, that those facts had been
predicted. It is true that Christ was buried, and that he rose again on the
third day. These facts were included in the revelation made to Paul, and the
truth of which he proceeds to confirm by abundant additional testimony.
That these facts were predicted in the Old Testament, is taught in John
20:9. Acts 26:23. The passage especially urged by the apostles as
foretelling the resurrection of Christ, is Psalms 16:10. Peter proves that
that Psalm cannot be understood of David, because his body was allowed
to see corruption. It must, he says, be understood of Christ, who was
raised from the dead, and “saw no corruption,” Acts 13:34-37. The
prophetic Scriptures, however, are full of this doctrine; for on the one hand
they predict the sufferings and death of the Messiah, and on the other his
 337
universal and perpetual dominion. It is only on the assumption that he was
to rise from the dead that these two classes of prediction can be reconciled.

5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

As the resurrection of Christ is an historical fact, it is to be proved by

historical evidence. The apostle therefore appeals to the testimony of
competent witnesses. All human laws assume that the testimony of two
witnesess, when uncontradicted, and especially when confirmed by
collateral evidence, produces such conviction of the truth of the fact
asserted as to justify even taking the life of a fellow-creature. Confidence
in such testimony is not founded on experience, but on the constitution of
our nature. We are so constituted that we cannot refuse assent to the
testimony of good men to a fact fairly within their knowledge. To render
such testimony irresistible it is necessary,
1. That the fact to be proved should be of a nature to admit of being
certainly known.
2. That adequate opportunity be afforded to the witnesses to ascertain its
nature, and to be satisfied of its verity.
3. That the witnesses be of sound mind and discretion.
4. That they be men of integrity. If these conditions be fulfilled, human
testimony establishes the truth of a fact beyond reasonable doubt. If,
however, in addition to these grounds of confidence, the witnesses give
their testimony at the expense of great personal sacrifice, or confirm it
with their blood; if, moreover, the occurrence of the fact in question
had been predicted centuries before it came to pass; if it had produced
effects not otherwise to be accounted for, effects extending to all ages
and nations; if the system of doctrine with which that fact is connected
so as to be implied in it, commends itself as true to the reason and
conscience of men; and if God confirms not only the testimony of the
original witnesses to the fact, but also the truth of the doctrines of
which that fact is the necessary basis, by the demonstration of his
Spirit, then it is insanity and wickedness to doubt it.
All these considerations concur in proof of the resurrection of Christ, and
render it the best authenticated event in the history of the world.
 338

The apostle does not refer to all the manifestations of our Lord after his
resurrection, but selects a few which he details in the order of their
occurrence. The first appearance mentioned is that to Cephas; see Luke
24:34. The second occurred on the same day “to the eleven and those who
were with them,” Luke 24:33-36. To this Paul refers by saying, “then to
the twelve;” comp. also John 20:19. On this occasion, when the disciples
were terrified by his sudden appearance in the midst of them, he said,
“Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold
my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye see the have. And when he had thus
spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet.” Luke 24:38-40. The
apostles collectively, after the apostasy of Judas, are spoken of as the
twelve according to a common usage, although at the time there were only
eleven.

6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom
the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

There is no distinct record of this event in the evangelical history. It may

have taken place on the occasion when Christ met his disciples in Galilee.
Before his death he told them, “After I am risen again, I will go before you
into Galilee,” Matthew 26:32. Early in the morning of his resurrection he
met the women who had been at his tomb, and said to them, “Be not
afraid; go tell my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there shall they
see me,” Matthew 28:10; and accordingly in v. 16, it is said, “Then the
eleven went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed
them.” This, therefore, was a formally appointed meeting, and doubtless
made known as extensively as possible to his followers, and it is probable,
therefore, that there was a concourse of all who could come, not only from
Jerusalem, but from the surrounding country, and from Galilee. Though
intended specially for the eleven, it is probable that all attended who knew
of the meeting, and could possibly reach the appointed place. Who would
willingly be absent on such an occasion? Others think that this appearance
took place at Jerusalem, where, in addition to the one hundred and twenty
who constituted the nucleus of the church in the holy city, there were
probably many disciples gathered from all parts of Judea in attendance on
 339
the passover. The special value of this testimony to the fact of Christ’s
resurrection, arises not only from the number of the witnesses, but from
Paul’s appeal to their testimony while the majority of them were still
alive. Some have fallen asleep. This is the Christian expression for dying,
v. 18, and 11:30. Death to the believer is a sleep for his body; a period of
rest to be followed by a glorious day.

7. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Which James is here intended cannot be determined, as the event is not

elsewhere recorded. The chronological order indicated in this citation of
witnesses, renders it improbable that the reference is to our Lord’s
interview with the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, and is
inconsistent with the tradition preserved by Jerome, that Christ appeared
to James immediately after his resurrection. It has been inferred that the
James intended was James the brother of our Lord, who presided over the
church in Jerusalem, because he was so conspicuous and universally
known. Then to all the apostles. This, for the reason given above, probably
does not refer to the appearance of Christ to the eleven on the day in
which he rose from the dead. It may refer to what is recorded in John
20:26; or to the interview mentioned in Acts 1:4. Whether James was one
of the apostles is not determined by any thing in the verse. The word
pa~sin may be used to indicate that the appearance was to the apostles
collectively; and this, from its position, is the most natural explanation. Or
the meaning may be, he appeared to James separately, and then to all the
apostles including James. If the James intended was James of Jerusalem;
and if that James were a different person from James the son of Alpheus (a
disputed point), then the former interpretation should be preferred. For
“the apostle” answers to “the twelve,” and if James of Jerusalem was not
the son of Alpheus, he was not one of the twelve.

8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Last of all may mean last of all the apostles; or, as is more probable, last of
all means the very last. As to an abortion, he appeared to me. Such is
Paul’s language concerning himself. Thus true is it, that unmerited favors
 340
produce self-abasement. Paul could never think of the distinction conferred
on him by Christ, without adverting to his own unworthiness.

9. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an

apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.

The least, not because the last in the order of appointment, but in rank and
dignity. Who am not worthy to be called an apostle. See Matthew 3:11.
Luke 3:16. This deep humility of the apostle, which led him to regard
himself as the least of the apostles, was perfectly consistent with the
strenuous assertion of his official authority, and of his claim to respect and
obedience. In 2 Corinthians 11:5 and 12:11, he says, he was “not behind
the very chiefest apostles;” and in Galatians 2:6-9, he claims full equality
with James, Cephas and John. Those of his children whom God intends to
exalt to posts of honor and power, he commonly prepares for their
elevation by leading them to such a knowledge of their sinfulness as to
keep them constantly abased. Because I persecuted the church of God.
This is the sin which Paul never forgave himself. He often refers to it with
the deepest contrition, 1 Timothy 1:13-15. The forgiveness of sin does not
obliterate the remembrance of it; neither does it remove the sense of
unworthiness and ill-desert.

10. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which (was
bestowed) upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than
they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Christian humility does not consist in denying what there is of good in us;
but in an abiding sense of ill-desert, and in the consciousness that what we
have of good is due to the grace of God. The grace of God, in this
connection, is not the love of God, but the influence of the Holy Spirit
considered as an unmerited favor. This is not only the theological and
popular, but also the scriptural sense of the word grace in many passages.
By the grace of God I am what I am. That is, divine grace has made me
what I am. ‘Had I been left to myself, I should have continued a
blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious. It is owing to his grace that I am
now an apostle, preaching the faith which I once destroyed.’ The grace of
which he was made the subject, he says, was not in vain, i.e. without
 341
effect. But, on the contrary, I labored more abundantly than they all. This
may mean either, more than any one of the apostles, or more than all of
them together. The latter is more in keeping with the tone of the passage.
It serves more to exalt the grace of God, to which Paul attributes every
thing good; and it is historically true, if the New Testament record is to be
our guide. Yet not I, i.e. the fact that I labored so abundantly is not to be
referred to me; I was not the laborer — but the grace which was with me.
By some editors the article is omitted in the last clause, hJ su<n ejmoi> . The
sense would then be with me, instead of, which was with me. In the one
case grace is represented as co-operating with the apostle; in the other, the
apostle loses sight of himself entirely, and ascribes every thing to grace. ‘It
was not I, but the grace of God.’ Theologically, there is no difference in
these different modes of statement. The common text is preferred by most
editors on critical grounds; and the sense, according to the common reading,
is more in accordance with the spirit of the passage, and with Paul’s
manner; comp. Romans 7:17. True, he did co-operate with the grace of
God, but this co-operation was due to grace — so that with the strictest
propriety he could say, ‘Not I, but the grace of God.’

11. Therefore whether (it were) I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

This verse resumes the subject from which vs. 9, 10 are a digression.
‘Christ appeared to the apostles and to me; whether therefore I or they
preached, we all proclaimed that fact, and ye all believed it.’ The
resurrection of Christ was included in the preaching of all ministers, and in
the faith of all Christians.

12, 13. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say
some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be
no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

The admission of the resurrection of Christ is inconsistent with the denial

of the resurrection of the dead. What has happened, may happen. The
actual is surely possible. This mode of arguing shows that the objections
urged in Corinth bore equally against the resurrection of Christ, and against
the general doctrine of the resurrection. They, therefore, could not have
been founded on the peculiar difficulties attending the latter doctrine. They
 342
must have been derived from the assumption that the restoration to life of
a body once dead, is either an impossibility, or an absurdity. Most
probably, these objectors thought, that to reunite the soul with the body
was to shut it up again in prison; and that it was as much a degradation and
retrocession, as if a man should again become an unborn infant. ‘No,’ these
philosophers said, ‘the hope of the resurrection “is the hope of swine.”
The soul having once been emancipated from the defiling encumbrance of
the body, it is never to be re-imprisoned.’

The argument of the apostle does not imply that the objectors admitted
the resurrection of Christ. He is not arguing with them, but against them.
His design is to show that their objections to the resurrection proved too
much. If they proved any thing, they proved what no Christian could
admit, viz., that Christ did not rise from the dead. The denial of the
resurrection of the dead involves the denial of the resurrection of Christ.
The question discussed throughout this chapter is not the continued
existence of the soul after death, but the restoration of the body to life.
This is the constant meaning of the expression “resurrection of the dead,”
for which the more definite expression “resurrection of the body” is often
substituted. Whether the false teachers in Corinth, who denied the doctrine
of the resurrection, also denied the immortality of the soul, is uncertain.
The probability is that they did not. For how could any one pretend to be
a Christian, and yet not believe in an hereafter? All that is certain is, that
they objected to the doctrine of the resurrection on grounds which logically
involved the denial of the resurrection of Christ.

14. And if Christ be not risen, then (is) our preaching vain, and your faith
(is) also vain.

This is the first consequence of denying the resurrection of Christ. The

whole gospel is subverted. The reason why this fact is so essential, is, that
Christ rested the validity of all his claims upon his resurrection. If he did
rise, then he is truly the Son of God and Savior of the world. His sacrifice
has been accepted, and God is propitious. If he did not rise, then none of
these things is true. He was not what he claimed to be, and his blood is not
a ransom for sinners. In Romans 1:3, the apostle expresses his truth in
another form, by saying that Christ was by his resurrection demonstrated
 343
to be the Son of God. It was on account of the fundamental importance of
this fact that the apostles were appointed to be the witnesses of Christ’s
resurrection, Acts 1:22. Then, i.e. in case Christ be not risen, our
preaching is vain, i.e. empty, void of all truth, reality, and power. And
your faith is also vain, i.e. empty, groundless. These consequences are
inevitable. For, if the apostles preached a risen and living Savior, and made
his power to save depend on the fact of his resurrection, of course, their
whole preaching was false and worthless, if Christ were still in the grave.
The dead cannot save the living. And if the object of the Christian’s faith
be the Son of God as risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of
God in heaven, they believed a falsehood if Christ be not risen.

15. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified
of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the
dead rise not.

This is the second consequence. The apostles were false witnesses. They
were guilty of deliberate falsehood. They testified that they had seen
Christ after his resurrection; that they had handled him, felt that he had
flesh and bones; that they had put their hands into his wounds, and knew
assuredly that it was their Lord. We are found, i.e. we are detected or
manifested as being false witnesses; not such as falsely claim to be
witnesses; but those who bear witness to what is false, Matthew 26:60.
Because we testified of God; literally, against God. We said he did, what in
fact he did not do, if so be the dead rise not. Here again it is assumed that
to deny that the dead rise is to deny that Christ has risen. But why is this?
Why may not a man admit that Christ, the incarnate Son of God, arose
from the dead, and yet consistently deny that there is to be a general
resurrection of the dead? Because the thing denied was that the dead could
rise. The denial was placed on grounds which embraced the case of Christ.
The argument is, If the dead cannot rise, then Christ did not rise; for Christ
was dead.

16. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

This is a reassertion of the inseparable connection between these two

events. If there be no resurrection, Christ is not risen. If the thing be
 344
impossible, it has never happened. The sense in which Christ rose,
determines the sense in which the dead are said to rise. As it is the
resurrection of Christ’s body that is affirmed, so it is the resurrection of
the bodies of the dead, and not merely the continued existence of their
souls which is affirmed. The repetition in this verse of what had been said
in v. 13, seems to be with the design of preparing the way for v. 17.

17. And if Christ be not raised, your faith (is) vain; ye are yet in your sins.

This is the third consequence of the denial of Christ’s resurrection. In v. 14

it was said, your faith is kenh>, empty; here it is said to be matai>a,
fruitless. In what sense the following clause explains; ye are yet in your
sins, i.e. under the condemnation of sin. Comp. John 8:21, “Ye shall die in
your sins.” As Christ’s resurrection is necessary to our justification,
Romans 4:25, if he did not rise, we are not justified. To teach, therefore,
that there is no resurrection, is to teach that there is no atonement and no
pardon. Errorists seldom see the consequences of the false doctrines which
they embrace. Many allow themselves to entertain doubts as to this very
doctrine of the resurrection of the body who would be shocked at the
thought of rejecting the doctrine of atonement. Yet Paul teaches that the
denial of the one involves the denial of the other.

18. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

This is the fourth disastrous consequence of the denial of the doctrine in

question. All the dead in Christ are lost. To fall asleep in Christ is to die in
faith, or in communion with Christ for salvation. See 1 Thessalonians 4:14.
Revelation 14:13. Are perished; rather, they perished. ‘They perished
when they died.’ Perdition, according to Scripture, is not annihilation, but
everlasting misery and sin It is the loss of holiness and happiness for ever.
If Christ did not rise for the justification of those who died in him, they
found no advocate at the bar of God; and have incurred the fate of those
who perish in their sins. Rather than admit such conclusions as these, the
Corinthians might well allow philosophers to say what they pleased about
the impossibility of a resurrection. It was enough for them that Christ had
risen, whether they could understand how it can be that the dead should
rise, or not.
 345

19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most
miserable.

Not only the future, but even the present is lost, if Christ be not risen. Not
only did the departed sink into perdition when they died, but we, who are
alive, are more miserable than other men. This is the last conclusion which
the apostle draws from the denial of the resurrection. If in this life only, the
word mo>non, only, admits of a threefold connection. Although it stands at
the end of the clause it may be connected, as in our translation, with the
words “in this life.”’If in this life only.’ That is,
1. if all the good we expect from Christ is to be enjoyed in this life, we are
more miserable than other men. We are constantly exposed to all
manner of persecutions and sufferings, while they are at their ease.
2. It may be connected with the word Christ. This is a very natural
construction, according to the position of the words in the common
text, for (ejn Cristw~| mo>non), in Christ only, stand together. The sense
would then be, ‘If we have set all our hopes on Christ, and he fails us,
we are of all men most miserable.’ This, however, supposes the
important clause, on which every thing depends (if he fails us), to be
omitted. It also leaves the words in this life without importance.
3. Recent editors, following the older manuscripts, place ejn Cristw~|
before the verb, and make mo>non qualify the whole clause. ‘If we have
only hoped in Christ, and there is to be no fulfilling of our hopes, we
are more miserable than others.’ Or, ‘If we are only such (nothing more
than such) who in life, and not in death, have hope in Christ,’ etc. The
apposition between the dead in v. 18, and the living in this verse, is in
favor of the first-mentioned explanation. ‘Those who died in Christ,
perished when they died. And we, if all our hopes in Christ are
confined to this life, are the most miserable of men.’ We have hoped.
The Greek is hjlpiko>tev ejsme>n, which, as the commentators remark,
expresses not what we do, but what we are. We are hopers.
This passage does not teach that Christians are in this life more miserable
than other men. This is contrary to experience. Christians are unspeakably
happier than other men. All that Paul means to say is, that if you take
Christ from Christians, you take their all. He is the source not only of their
 346
future, but of their present happiness. Without him they are yet in their
sins, under the curse of the law, unreconciled to God, having no hope, and
without God in the world; and yet subject to all the peculiar trials incident
to a Christian profession, which in the apostolic age often included the loss
of all things.

20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, (and) become the first-fruits of
them that slept.

But now, nuni< de> , i.e. as the matter actually stands. All the gloomy
consequences presented in the preceding verses follow from the
assumption that Christ did not rise from the dead. But as in point of fact
he did rise, these things have no place. Our preaching is not vain, your
faith is not vain, ye are not in your sins, the dead in Christ have not
perished, we are not more miserable than other men. The reverse of all this
is true. Christ has not only risen, but he has risen in a representative
character. His resurrection is the pledge of the resurrection of his people.
He rose as the first-fruits of them that slept, and not of them only, but as
the first-fruits of all who are ever to sleep in Jesus. The apostle does not
mean merely that the resurrection of Christ was to precede that of his
people; but as the first sheaf of the harvest presented to God as a
thank-offering, was the pledge and assurance of the ingathering of the
whole harvest, so the resurrection of Christ is a pledge and proof of the
resurrection of his people. In Romans 8:23 and 11:16, the word ajparch>,
first-fruits, has the same force. Comp. also Colossians 1:18, where Christ
is called “the first begotten from the dead,” and Revelation 1:5. Of the
great harvest of glorified bodies which our earth is to yield Christ is the
first-fruits. As he rose, so all his people must; as certainly and as
gloriously, Philippians 3:21. The nature of this causal connection between
the resurrection of Christ and that of his people, is explained in the
following verses.

21. For since by man (came) death, by man (came) also the resurrection of
the dead.

The connection between this verse and the preceding is obvious. The
resurrection of Christ secures the resurrection of his people, for as there
 347
was a causal relation between the death of Adam and the death of his
descendants, so there is a causal relation between the resurrection of Christ
and that of his people. What that causal relation is, is not here expressed.
It is simply asserted that as death is di’ ajnqrw>pou, by means of a man;
so the resurrection is di’ ajnqrw>pou, by means of a man. Why Adam was
the cause of death, and why Christ is the cause of life, is explained in the
following verse, and abundantly elsewhere in Scripture, but not here. By
death, in this verse, is meant the death of the body; and by the resurrection
is meant the restoration of the body to life. This, however, only proves
that the death of which Adam was the cause includes physical death, and
that the life of which Christ is the cause includes the future life of the
body. But as the life which we derive from Christ includes far more than
the life of the body, so the death which flows from Adam includes far
more than physical death.

22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

This is the reason why Adam was the cause of death, and why Christ is
the cause of life. We die by means of Adam, because we were in Adam; and
we live by means of Christ, because we are in Christ. Union with Adam is
the cause of death; union with Christ is the cause of life. The nature of this
union and its consequences are more fully explained in Romans 5:12-21. In
both cases it is a representative and vital union. We are in Adam because
he was our head and representative, and because we partake of his nature.
And we are in Christ because he is our head and representative, and
because we partake of his nature through the indwelling of his Spirit.
Adam, therefore, is the cause of death, because his sin is the judicial ground
of our condemnation; and because we derive from him a corrupt and
enfeebled nature. Christ is the cause of life, because his righteousness is the
judicial ground of our justification; and because we derive from him the
Holy Ghost, which is the source of life both to the soul and body. Comp.
Romans 8:9-11.

That the word all in the latter part of this verse is to be restricted to all
believers (or rather, to all the people of Christ, as infants are included) is
plain,
1. Because the word in both clauses is limited. It is the all who are in
 348
Adam that die; and the all who are in Christ who are made alive. As
union with Christ is made the ground of the communication of life here
spoken of, it can be extended only to those who are in him. But
according to the constant representation of the Scriptures, none are in
him but his own people. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new
creature,” 2 Corinthians 5:17.
2. Because the verb (zwopoie>w) here found is never used of the wicked.
Whenever employed in reference to the work of Christ it always means
to communicate to them that life of which he is the source, John 5:21;
6:63. Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:45. Galatians 3:21. The real
meaning of the verse therefore, is, ‘As in Adam all die, so in Christ
shall all be made partakers of a glorious and everlasting life.’ Unless,
therefore, the Bible teaches that all men are in Christ, and that all
through him partake of eternal life, the passage must be restricted to
his own people.
3. Because, although Paul elsewhere speaks of a general resurrection both
of the just and of the unjust, Acts 24:15, yet, throughout this chapter
he speaks only of the resurrection of the righteous.
4. Because, in the parallel passage in Romans 5:12-21, the same limitation
must be made. In v. 18 of that chapter it is said, “As by the offense of
one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the
righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of
life.” That is, as for the offense of Adam all men were condemned, so
for the righteousness of Christ all men are justified.
The context and the analogy of Scripture require us to understand this to
mean, as all who are in Adam are condemned, so all who are in Christ are
justified. No historical Christian church has ever held that all men
indiscriminately are justified. For whom God justifies them he also
glorifies, Romans 8:30.

There are two other interpretations of this verse. According to one, the
verb, shall be made alive, is taken to mean no more than shall be raised
from the dead. But this, as already remarked, is not only inconsistent with
the prevailing use of the word, but with the whole context. Others,
admitting that the passage necessarily treats of a resurrection to glory and
blessedness, insist that the word all must be taken to include all men. But
 349
this contradicts the constant doctrine of the Bible, and has no support in
the context. It is not absolutely all who die through Adam, but those only
who were in him; so it is not absolutely all who live through Christ, but
those only who are in him.

23. But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they
that are Christ’s at his coming.

In his own order. The word ta>gma is properly a concrete term, meaning a
band, as of soldiers. If this be insisted upon here, then Paul considers the
hosts of those that rise as divided into different cohorts or companies; first
Christ, then his people, then the rest of mankind. But the word is used by
later writers, as Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians 1:37, and 41, in
the sense of ta>xiv, order of succession. And this best suits the context, for
Christ is not a band. All that Paul teaches is, that, although the resurrection
of Christ secures that of his people, the two events are not
contemporaneous. First Christ, then those who are Christ’s. There is no
intimation of any further division or separation in time in the process of
the resurrection. The resurrection of the people of Christ is to take place at
his coming, 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:14-19.

24. Then (cometh) the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to
God, even the Father; when he shall have put down an rule, and an
authority and power.

This is a very difficult passage, and the interpretations given of it are too
numerous to be recited. The first question is, What is the end here spoken
of? The common answer is, That it is the end of the world. That is, the
close of the present order of things; the consummation of the work of
redemption. In favor of this view, it may be urged,
1. That where there is nothing in the context to determine otherwise, The
end naturally means the end of all things. There is nothing here to limit
the application, but the nature of the subject spoken of.
2. The analogy of Scripture is in favor of this explanation. In 1 Peter 4:7
we find the expression “the end of all things is at hand.” Matthew
24:6, “The end is not yet;” v. 14, “Then shall the end come.” So in
 350
Mark 13:7. Luke 21:9. In all these passages the end means the end of
the world.
3. The equivalent expressions serve to explain the meaning of this phrase.
The disciples asked our Lord, “What shall be the sign of thy coming,
and of the end of the world?” (i.e. the consummation of the present
dispensation.) In answer to this question, our Lord said certain things
were to happen, but “the end is not yet;” and afterwards, “then shall
the end come.” See Matthew 24:3, 6, 14. The same expression occurs
in the same sense, Matthew 13:39; 28:20, and elsewhere. “The end,”
therefore, means the end of the world. In the same sense the phrase
“until the restoration of all things” is probably used in Acts 3:21.
4. What immediately follows seems decisive in favor of this
interpretation. The end is, when Christ shall deliver up his kingdom,
after having subdued all his enemies; i.e. after having accomplished the
work of redemption.

Many commentators understand by the end, the end of the resurrection.

That work, they say, is to be accomplished by distinct stages. First the
resurrection of Christ, then that of his people, then that of the wicked.
This last, they say, is expressed by then cometh the end, viz., the end of
the resurrection. Against this view, however, are all the arguments above
stated in favor of the opinion that the end means the end of the world.
Besides, the doctrine that there are to be two resurrections, one of the
righteous and another of the wicked, the latter separated from the former
by an unknown period of time, is entirely foreign to the New Testament,
unless what is said in the 20th chapter of Revelation teaches that doctrine.
Admitting that a twofold resurrection is there spoken of, it would not be
proper to transfer from that passage an idea foreign to all Paul’s
representations of the subject. If that fact was revealed to John, it does not
prove that it was revealed to Paul. All that the most stringent doctrine of
inspiration requires is, that the passages should not contradict each other.
The passage in Revelation, however, is altogether too uncertain to be made
the rule of interpretation for the plainer declarations of the epistolary
portions of the New Testament. On the contrary, what is doubtful in the
former should be explained by what is clearly taught in the latter.
Secondly, it is clearly taught in the gospels and epistles that the
 351
resurrection of the righteous and of the wicked is to be contemporaneous.
At least, that is the mode in which the subject is always presented. The
element of time (i.e. the chronological succession of the events) may indeed
in these representations be omitted, as is so often the case in the
prophecies of the Old Testament. But unless it can be proved from other
sources, that events which are foretold as contemporaneous, or as
following the one the other in immediate succession, are in fact separated
by indefinite periods of time, no such separation can properly be assumed.
In the evangelists and epistles the resurrection of the righteous and that of
the wicked are spoken of as contemporaneous, and since their separation
in time is nowhere else revealed, the only proper inference is that they are
to occur together. In Matthew 24:3, the coming of Christ and the end of
the world are coupled together as contemporaneous. And throughout that
chapter our Lord foretells what is to happen before that event, and adds,
“Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven... and he shall
send his angels with the sound of a great trumpet, and they shall gather
together the elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the
other,” vs. 30, 31. In John 5:28, 29 it is said, “The hour is coming when all
(good and bad) who are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of
Man, and shall come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection
of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.” In
2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, Christ is said to come to take vengeance on those
who obey not the gospel, and to be glorified in the saints. These events go
together. Besides, our Lord repeatedly says that he will raise up his people
“at the last day,” John 6:39, 40; 11:24, and therefore not an indefinitely
long period before the last day. According to the uniform representations
of the Scriptures, when Christ comes he is to raise all the dead and
separate the wicked from among the just as a shepherd divides his sheep
from the goats. Or, according to another figure, he is to send forth his
angels and separate the tares from the wheat. It has therefore been the
constant faith of the church that the second advent of Christ, the
resurrection of the just and of the unjust, the final judgment and end of the
world — are parts of one great transaction, and not events which are to
succeed each other at long intervals of time. All this, however, is said with
diffidence and submission. It may prove to be otherwise. The predictions
of the Old Testament produced the universal impression that the first
coming of Christ was to be attended at once by events which we learn
 352
from the New Testament require ages to bring about. Still, we are bound to
take the Scriptures as they stand, and events which are described as
contemporaneous are to be assumed to be so, until the event proves the
contrary. We may be perfectly sure that the Scriptures will prove
infallibly true. The predictions of the Old Testament, although in some
points misinterpreted, or rather interpreted too far, by the ancient church,
were fully vindicated and explained by the event.

The second question to be considered is, When is the end of the world to
take place? According to some, at Christ’s coming; according to others, at
an indefinite period after his second coming. It may be admitted that this
verse is not decisive on this point. It marks the succession of certain
events, but determines nothing as to the interval between them First,
Christ’s resurrection; then the resurrection of his people; then the end of
the world. But as it is said that those who are Christ’s shall rise at his
coming, and then cometh the end; the natural impression is that nothing
remains to be done after the resurrection before the end comes. This view
is confirmed by the numerous passages of the New Testament, several of
which have already been quoted, which connect the general judgment and
end of the world as intimately with the coming of Christ as the
resurrection of his people. Some of those who assume that an indefinite
period is to elapse between the coming of Christ and the end of the world,
suppose that the intervening period is to be occupied not in the work of
conversion, but in the subjugation of the enemies of Christ spoken of in
the following verses. The common opinion among those who adopt this
interpretation is, that the interval in question is to be occupied by the
personal reign of Christ on earth. This is the doctrine of the ancient
Chiliasts, and of modern Millenarians. The form which this doctrine has
commonly assumed in ancient and modern times is only a modified
Judaism, entirely at variance with the spirituality of the gospel and with
the teachings of the apostle in this chapter. He tells us that flesh and
blood, i.e. bodies organized as our present bodies are, i.e. natural bodies,
cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The whole design of the latter portion
of this chapter is to show that after the resurrection, the bodies of
believers will be like the glorious body of the Son of God, adapted to a
heavenly, and not to an earthly condition.
 353
A third question which this verse presents is, In what sense is Christ to
deliver up the kingdom to the Father? In the common text the words are
o[tan paradw~,| when he shall have delivered up; most of the modern
editors read paradidw~|, when he delivers up. That is, when the end
comes, Christ is to deliver up the kingdom to his Father. What does this
mean? The Scriptures constantly teach that Christ’s kingdom is an
everlasting kingdom, and of his dominion there is no end. In what sense,
then, can he be said to deliver up his kingdom? It must be remembered that
the Scriptures speak of a threefold kingdom as belonging to Christ.
1. That which necessarily belongs to him as a divine person, extending
over all creatures, and of which he can never divest himself.
2. That which belongs to him as the incarnate Son of God, extending over
his own people. This also is everlasting. He will for ever remain the
head and sovereign of the redeemed.
3. That dominion to which he was exalted after his resurrection, when all
power in heaven and earth was committed to his hands. This kingdom,
which he exercises as the Theanthropos, and which extends over all
principalities and powers, he is to deliver up when the work of
redemption is accomplished. He was invested with this dominion in his
mediatorial character for the purpose of carrying on his work to its
consummation. When that is done, i.e. when he has subdued all his
enemies, then he will no longer reign over the universe as Mediator, but
only as God; while his headship over his people is to continue for ever.
To God even the Father, i.e. to him who is at once his God and Father.
This is the Scriptural designation of the first person of the Trinity. He is
the God of the Lord Jesus Christ, inasmuch as he is the God whom Christ
came to reveal, and whose work he performs. He is his Father in virtue of
the eternal relation subsisting between the first and second persons in the
Godhead.

The fourth question which this pregnant verse suggests is presented in the
last clause. When he shall have put down all rule, and authority and power.
Calvin and others understand this to mean, ‘When he shall have abrogated
all other dominion than his own.’ Whatever authority is now exercised by
one man over others is at last to be abolished, and merged in the
all-pervading authority of God. Most commentators, in obedience to the
 354
context, understand the passage to refer to all hostile powers, whether
demoniacal or human. These are to be put down, i.e. effectually subdued;
not annihilated, and not converted; but simply deprived of all power to
disturb the harmony of his kingdom.

25. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

This verse assigns the reason why Christ cannot relinquish his dominion
over the universe as mediator until the end comes, and why he will then
deliver it up. He must reign until the purpose for which he was invested
with this universal dominion is accomplished. As in Psalms 110 it is said
to the Messiah, “Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy
footstool,” many assume that God is the subject of the verb has put. The
meaning would then be, ‘He must reign until God has put all his enemies
under his feet.’ But this is inconsistent with the context. Christ is to put
down all rule, authority and power, v. 24, and he reigns until he has
accomplished that work. The two modes of representation are perfectly
consistent. The Father created the world, though he did it through the Son,
Hebrews 1:3. The work, therefore, is sometimes ascribed to the one and
sometimes to the other. In like manner the Father subdues the powers of
darkness, but it is through Christ to whom all power in heaven and earth
has been committed. It is therefore equally proper to say that God makes
the enemies of Christ his footstool, and that Christ himself puts his
enemies under his feet. The enemies who are to be thus subdued are not
only intelligent beings hostile to Christ, but all the forms of evil, physical
and moral, because death is specially included. By subduing, however, is
not meant destroying or banishing out of existence. The passage does not
teach that Christ is to reign until all evil is banished from the universe.
Satan is said to be subdued, when deprived of his power to injure the
people of God. And evil in like manner is subdued when it is restrained
within the limits of the kingdom of darkness.

26. The last enemy (that) shall be destroyed (is) death.

Death shall reign until the resurrection. Then men shall never more be
subject to his power. Then death shall be swallowed up in victory, Luke
 355
20:36. “Neither shall they die any more,” 2 Timothy 1:10 Revelation
20:14.

27. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, All things
are put under (him, it is) manifest that he is excepted, which did put all
things under him.

The proof that death is finally to be destroyed is derived from the 8th
Psalm, where the subjection of all things to the Messiah is predicted.
There are two passages of the Old Testament frequently quoted in the
New Testament as foretelling the absolutely universal dominion of the
Messiah, Psalms 110 and Psalms 8. The former is quoted, or its language
appropriated, in v. 25. Matthew 22:44. Acts 2:34. Ephesians 1:22.
Hebrews 1:13; 10:12, 13, 1 Peter 3:22. In this there is no difficulty, as that
Psalm clearly refers to the Messiah and to none else. The 8th Psalm is
quoted and applied to Christ in this passage, and in Ephesians 1:22.
Hebrews 2:8, and 1 Peter 3:22. As this Psalm has no apparent reference to
the Messiah, but is a thanksgiving to God for his goodness to man, the use
made of it in the New Testament is to be understood as an inspired
exposition of its hidden meaning. That is, when the Psalmist said, “Thou
madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands, thou hast put
all things under his feet,” we learn from the New Testament that the Spirit
of God intended by these words far more than that man was invested with
dominion over the beasts of the field. There is no limit to the all things
here intended. Hebrews 2:8. Man is clothed with dominion over the whole
universe, over all principalities and powers, and every name that is named,
not only in this world but also in that which is to come. This is fulfilled in
the man Christ Jesus, into whose hands all power in heaven and earth has
been committed. This may be called the hidden meaning of the Psalm,
because it never would have been discovered without a further revelation
such as we find in the exposition given by the inspired apostles,. When he
saith, o[tan ei]ph|, This may mean either, when the Scripture saith, or when
God saith. The latter is better on account of what follows. The verb is not
to be translated as in the present tense, but, as the better commentators
agree, in the past future, see v. 24. Hebrews 1:6. ‘When God shall have
said.’ That is, when God shall have declared his purpose to subject all
things to Christ accomplished, it will then be manifest that all things are
 356
subject to him, God only excepted.

28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also
himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be
all in all.

When the work of redemption has been accomplished, the dead raised, the
judgment held, the enemies of Christ all subdued, then, and not till then,
will the Son also himself be subject to him who put all things under him.
This passage is evidently parallel with that in v. 24. The subjection of the
Son to the Father here means precisely what is there meant by his
delivering up the kingdom to God even the Father. The thing done, and the
person who does it, are the same. The subjection here spoken of is not
predicated of the eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity, any
more than the kingdom spoken of in v. 24 is the dominion which belongs
essentially to Christ as God. As there the word Christ designates the
Theanthropos, so does the word Son here designate, not the Logos as such,
but the Logos as incarnate. And as the delivery of the kingdom or royal
authority over the universe committed to Christ after his resurrection, is
consistent at once with his continued dominion as God over all creatures,
and with his continued headship over his people; so is the subjection here
spoken of consistent with his eternal equality with the Father. It is not the
subjection of the Son as Son, but of the Son as Theanthropos of which the
apostle here speaks. The doctrine of the true and proper divinity of our
Lord is so dearly revealed in Scripture, and is so inwrought into the faith of
his people, that such passages as these, though adduced with so much
confidence by the impugners of that doctrine, give believers no more
trouble than the ascription of the limitations of our nature to God. When
the Bible says that God repents, we know that it is consistent with his
immutability; and when it says the Son is subject or inferior to the Father,
we know that it is consistent with their equality, as certainly as we know
that saying that man is immortal is consistent with saying he is mortal. We
know that both of the last-mentioned propositions are true: because
mortality is predicated of man in one aspect, and immortality in another
aspect. In one sense he is mortal, in another sense he is immortal. In like
manner we know that the verbally inconsistent propositions, the Son is
subject to the Father, and, the Son is equal with the Father, are both true.
 357
In one sense he is subject, in another sense he is equal. The son of a king
may be the equal of his father in every attribute of his nature, though
officially inferior. So the eternal Son of God may be coequal with the
Father, though officially subordinate. What difficulty is there in this? What
shade does it cast over the full Godhead of our adorable Redeemer? The
subordination, however, here spoken of, is not that of the human nature of
Christ separately considered, as when he is said to suffer, or to die, or to
be ignorant; but it is the official subordination of the incarnate Son to God
as God. The words aujto<v oJ uiJo>v, the Son himself, here designate, as in so
many other places, not the second person of the Trinity as such, but that
person as clothed in our nature. And the subjection spoken of, is not of the
former, but of the latter, i.e. not of the Son as Son, but of the Son as
incarnate; and the subjection itself is official and therefore perfectly
consistent with equality of nature.

There is another difficulty connected with this verse which it may be well
to notice. According to the Scriptures and the creeds of all the great
historical churches (Greek, Latin, Lutheran and Reformed), the term Son,
as applied to Christ, designates his divine nature. It is a term of nature and
not of office. He was from eternity the Son of God. Yet it is of the Son
that subjection is here predicated. This is urged as an argument against his
eternal sonship. The fact, however, is, that the person of Christ may be
designated from one nature, when the predicate belongs either to the
opposite nature or to the whole person. That is, he may be called God
when what is said of him is true only of his human nature or of his
complex person as God and man; and he may be called man, when what is
said is true only of his divine nature. Thus he is called the Son of Man
when omnipresence and omniscience are ascribed to him; and he is called
God, the Son of God, the Lord of glory when he is said to die. These
passages do not prove that the human nature of Christ is every where
present; or that his divine nature suffered and died. Neither do such
expressions as that in the text prove that the Son as such is inferior to the
Father, nor that the term Son is not a scriptural designation of his divine
nature. The principle here adverted to is so important, and serves to
explain so many passages of Scripture, that it will bear to be often
repeated.
 358
That God may be all in all. Before the ascension of Christ, God reigned as
God; after that event he reigned and still reigns through the Theanthropos;
when the end comes, the Theanthropos will deliver up this administrative
kingdom, and God again be all in all. Such is the representation of
Scripture, and such seems to be the simple meaning of this passage. When
our Lord ascended up on high all power in heaven and earth was given to
him. It was given to him then, and therefore not possessed before. He is to
retain this delegated power in his character of Mediator, God-man, until
his enemies are put under his feet. Then he, the God-man, is to deliver it
up. And God as God will reign supreme. The phrase here used, ta< pa>nta
(or pa>nta) ejn pa~sin, all in all, depends (as is the case with all similar
formulas), for its precise meaning on the connection. If words be taken by
themselves, and made to mean any thing which their signification will
admit, without regard to the context or to the analogy of Scripture, then
the authority of the word of God is effectually subverted. No book, human
or divine, can be interpreted on a principle so unreasonable. Some,
however, regardless of this universally admitted rule of interpretation, say
that these words teach that the whole universe is to be merged in God —
he is to become all in all — he will be all, and all will be God. Others limit
the last all to intelligent creatures, and the sense in which God is all is
restricted to his gracious influence; so that while the continued personal
existence of rational creatures is provided for, it is assumed that God is to
reign supreme in all intelligent beings. All sin and evil will thus be banished
from the whole universe. This interpretation is, in the first place, perfectly
arbitrary. If the meaning of the words is to be pressed beyond the limits
assigned by the context and the analogy of Scripture, why limit ejn pa~si to
intelligent creatures, and ta< pa>nta to mere gracious control? The passage
teaches pantheism, if it teaches universalism. Secondly, this interpretation
is contrary to the context. Paul is speaking simply of the continuance of
the mediatorial dominion of Christ over the universe. That dominion was
given to him for a specific purpose; when that purpose is accomplished, he
will give it up, and God, instead of reigning through Christ, will be
recognized as the immediate sovereign of the universe; his co-equal,
co-eternal Son, clothed in our nature, being, as the everlasting head of the
redeemed, officially subordinate to him. In other words, the whole
question, so to speak, is whose hands are to hold the reins of universal
dominion. They are now in the hands of Christ; hereafter they are to be in
 359
the hands of God as such. The passage does not teach us the design of
redemption, but what is to happen when the redemption of God’s people
is accomplished. Then the Messianic reign is to cease, and God is to rule
supreme over a universe reduced to order, the people of God being saved,
and the finally impenitent shut up with Satan and his angels in the prison
of despair. Thirdly, the interpretation which makes this passage teach the
restoration of all intelligent creatures to holiness, is contrary to the express
declarations of Scriptures and to the faith of the church universal. This the
most accomplished of its advocates virtually admit. See for example
Olshausen’s commentary on this epistle. If the evidence in support of the
doctrine of the everlasting perdition of the wicked were not overwhelming,
it never could have become a part of the faith of the universal church. And
that doctrine being once established on its own grounds, doubtful passages
must he interpreted in accordance with it.

There is another orthodox interpretation of this passage. It is assumed to

treat of the final result of the work of redemption. God will reign supreme
in all. But the all is restricted to the subjects of redemption. The whole
chapter treats of those who are in Christ. It is of their resurrection, and of
the effect of redemption in their case, the apostle is assumed to speak. ‘All
who are in Christ shall be made alive, v. 22, and God shall reign in them
all.’ The sense is good, but this interpretation overlooks what intervenes
between vs. 22 and 28 concerning the kingdom of Christ and its being given
up.

29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise
not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The apostle, after the preceding digression, returns to his argument for the
resurrection. ‘The dead are certainly to be raised, otherwise (ejpei> ) what
shall they do who are baptized for the dead?’ This practice (whatever it
was) of baptizing for the dead, takes for granted that the dead are to rise.
What shall they do, i.e. What account will they give of themselves? what
explanation of their conduct can they make? The most important of the
numerous interpretations of this verse admit of being reduced to the
following classes:
1. Those which turn on the sense given to the word baptize.
 360
2. Those which depend on the explanation of the preposition uJpe>r, for.
3. Those which assume an ellipsis in the verse.
4. Those which turn on the explanation of tw~n nekrw~n , the dead.

1. The simplest and most natural interpretation takes the word baptize in
its ordinary sense. ‘What do they do who allow themselves to be
baptized in the place of the dead?’ This supposes that the custom of
vicarious baptism, as afterwards practiced by the Cerinthians and
Marcionites, had already been introduced into Corinth. Among those
heretical sects, if a catechumen died before baptism, some one was
baptized in his name, in order that he might be enrolled among
Christians and receive the benefit of the ordinance. The objections to
this interpretation are, that the practice was superstitious, founded on
wrong views of the nature and efficacy of baptism.
2. That there are no traces elsewhere of the prevalence of vicarious
baptism before the second century.
3. That it was universally condemned by the churches as heretical.
4. That it cannot be supposed that the apostle would refer to such a
superstitious custom without condemning it. These objections are in a
measure met by the following considerations:
1. Paul, so far from intimating any approbation of the custom,
distinctly separates himself from its abettors. He does not say,
‘What shall we do’ —’What shall they do.’ It was something with
which he had no fellowship.
2. That this method of arguing against others from their own
concessions, is one which the apostle frequently employs.
3. That when his mind is full of a particular subject he does not leave
it, to pronounce judgment on things incidentally introduced. Thus,
in chap. 11:5, when treating of women speaking in the church
unveiled, he expresses no disapprobation of their speaking in
public, although he afterwards condemned it. A still more striking
example of the same thing is to be found 10:8, where he speaks of
the Corinthians “sitting at meat in an idol’s temple,” without any
disapprobation of the thing itself, but only of its influence on the
 361
weaker brethren. Yet, in 10:14-22, he proves that the thing itself
was an act of idolatry.
4. That the entire disappearance of this custom in the orthodox
church, although other superstitious observances not less
objectionable soon prevailed, is probably to be referred to the
practice having been forbidden by the apostle as soon as he reached
Corinth. This may have been one of the things which he left “to be
set in order when he came,” 11:34.
5. The state of the church in Corinth, as disclosed by this epistle, was
not such as to render the adoption of such a custom by a portion of
the people, incredible. Baptizing for the dead was not so bad as
sitting at the table of devils, 10:21.
A second interpretation under this head gives the word baptize the
figurative sense which it has in Matthew 20:22. Luke 12:50, “I have a
baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened until it be
accomplished!” According to this view, Paul here refers to the baptism of
afflictions. ‘Why do men suffer so for the hopelessly dead? if the dead are
not to rise, what is the use of suffering so much for them? i.e. of laboring
so much, and enduring so much for men who, when dead, are never to live
again.’ This, however, evidently puts a sense on the word dead, which it
will not bear. It is assumed to designate not those actually dead, but men
who when dead are not to rise again.

Of the second class of interpretations some propose to render uJpe>r by

over. ‘Why do they baptize over the dead? i.e. over their graves.’
Sometimes, for the sake of expressing their faith in the resurrection,
Christians are said to have been baptized over the graves of the martyrs.
Others say that uJpe>r means in the place of. ‘Why should men be baptized
in place of the dead? i.e. to supply their places in the church, and thus
keep up the ranks of believers.’ A third class propose to take nekrw~n for
the singular, and to read, ‘Why are they baptized for one dead?’ Others
say the meaning is, for the dead, i.e. for bodies. What is the use of being
baptized for a dead body? a body which is never to live again. He that is
baptized receives the ordinance believing that his body is not to remain
dead. Calvin and others understand the dead to mean here, those about to
die. ‘Why should baptism be administered for those on the verge of the
 362
grave — if there be no resurrection?’ Finally, some suppose the passage is
elliptical. Fully expressed it would be, ‘What do they do who are baptized
for the resurrection of the dead?’ i.e. in hope of the resurrection which was
professed by all who receive baptism. The darkness which rests on this
passage can never be entirely cleared away, because the reference is to a
custom of which no account is extant. If the dead rise not at all belongs to
the latter member of the verse. ‘If the dead rise not at all, why are they
baptized for them?’ Instead of tw~n nekrw~n , the dead, modern editors read
aujtw~n, them.

30. And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

Here Paul speaks for himself. With baptizing for the dead, he had nothing
to do. ‘Why do they allow themselves,’ he asks, ‘to be baptized for the
dead?’ That, as would appear, is what his opponents did. As an additional
argument for the doctrine which he is defending, he urges, that its denial
destroys at least one of the great motives to self-denial. ‘If there be no
resurrection, on which all our hopes as Christians depend, why should we
voluntarily encounter perpetual danger?’ It is to be remembered that,
according to Paul’s doctrine and previous argument, if there be no
resurrection, then Christ is not risen, and if Christ be not risen, there is no
atonement, no reconciliation with God. We are in a state of final and
hopeless condemnation. What is the use of laboring to save men, if there be
no salvation?

31. I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die
daily.

Paul solemnly assures his readers that he was constantly in jeopardy, for,
says he, I die daily, i.e. I am constantly exposed to death, 2 Corinthians
4:10. By your boasting which I have. This is not the meaning, but, ‘By my
boasting concerning you.’ That is, ‘as surely as I boast of you, and rejoice
over you.’ The pronoun uJmete>ran your, is to be taken objectively (as in
Romans 11:31; comp. also 1 Corinthians 9:12) the boasting of which you
are the object. Which I have in Christ Jesus, i.e. which I have in
communion with Christ. It was a rejoicing which he, as a Christian
minister, had over them as the seals of his ministry.
 363

32. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what
advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to-morrow
we die.

The apostle refers to one, and probably a recent instance of his exposure
to death. If after the manner of men, i.e. with those views and interests
which determine the conduct of ordinary men, i.e. without hope in the
resurrection. I have fought with beasts at Ephesus. This may be understood
either literally or figuratively. Against the literal interpretation is urged,
1. The improbability that, as a Roman citizen, he should have been
subjected to that punishment. But his being a Roman citizen did not
prevent his being thrice beaten with rods, by Roman magistrates, or at
least, by others than Jews, and contrary to law, 2 Corinthians 11:25.
2. The silence of The Acts on the subject. But we learn from 2
Corinthians 11:23-29, that scarcely a tithe of what Paul did and
suffered is recorded in The Acts.
3. The omission of any reference to his exposure to wild beasts in the
long enumeration of his sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29. This is a
more serious objection.
Considering, moreover, that Paul was at Ephesus exposed to the violent
tumult of the people, and that this expression is often used by the ancients
figuratively for contests with enraged men, the probability is, that it is to
be so understood here. What to the is the advantage? ‘If I have no other
views or hopes than ordinary men, whose expectations are confined to this
world, what is the use of incurring so many dangers?’ If the dead rise not.
This clause does not belong to the one preceding, as it is pointed in our
version, but to what follows. ‘If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for
to-morrow we die.’ The natural consequence of denying the doctrine of the
resurrection, involving as it does the denial of the gospel, and the
consequent rejection of all hope of salvation, is to make men reckless, and
to lead them to abandon themselves to mere sensual enjoyments. If man
has no glorious hereafter, he naturally sinks towards the level of the brutes,
whose destiny he is to share.

33. Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

 364

This warning flows naturally from what had been said. If the tendency of
the denial of the resurrection be to render men reckless and sensual, then
the Corinthians should not be deceived by the plausible arguments or
specious conduct of the errorists among them. They should avoid them,
under the conviction that all evil is contagious. Evil communications. The
word properly means a being together, companionship. It is contact,
association with evil, that is declared to be corrupting. This is a fact of
common experience, and therefore the apostle expresses it in a verse
borrowed from the Greek poet, Menander, which had probably become a
proverb. It is only when men associate with the wicked with the desire and
purpose to do them good, that they can rely on the protection of God to
preserve them from contamination.

34. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge
of God: I speak (this) to your shame.

Surrounded by evil teachers, the Corinthians had need not only of being on
their guard against deception, but also of vigilance. Awake. The word
properly means, to become sober, to arouse from a state of drunkenness or
torpor. The call is to prompt exertion to shake off the delusion under
which they were lying as to their security. To righteousness, literally,
righteously, i.e. in a proper manner. ‘Awake rightly,’ or, as Luther renders
it, Wake right up. And sin not, i.e. do not allow yourselves to be carried
away into sin. This was the end to be answered by their vigilance. There
was need of this exhortation, for some have not the knowledge of God;
literally, have ignorance of God They are ignorant of God; and therefore
they deny the resurrection. Comp. Matthew 22:29, where our Lord says
to the Sadducees who denied the resurrection, “Ye do err, not knowing the
Scriptures, nor the power of God.” I speak this to your shame. It should
make you ashamed that there are men among you capable of calling in
question one of the great essential facts of the gospel — the resurrection of
the dead.

NATURE OF THE RESURRECTION BODY, VS. 35-58.

 365
Having proved the fact of the resurrection, the apostle comes to illustrate
its nature, or to teach with what kind of bodies the dead are to rise. It
seems that the great objection against the doctrine in the minds of his
readers rested on the assumption that our future bodies are to be of the
same nature with those which we now have; that is, natural bodies
consisting of flesh and blood, and sustained by air, food and sleep. Paul
says this is a foolish assumption. Our future bodies may be material and
identical with our present bodies, and yet organized in a very different
way. You plant a seed; it does not come up a seek, but a flower. Why then
may not the future be to the present body what the flower is to the seed?
vs. 35-37. Matter admits of indefinite varieties in organization. There is
not only immense diversity in the vegetable productions of the earth, but
even flesh is variously modified in the different orders of animals, vs. 38,
39. This is true not only as to the earth, for there are heavenly as well as
earthly bodies. And even the sun, moon and stars differ from each other in
glory; why then may not our future differ from our present bodies in
glory? vs. 40, 41. Such not only may be, but will be the case. The body
deposited in the grave is corruptible, mean, weak, and, in a word, natural;
as raised from the grave, it will be incorruptible, glorious, powerful, and
spiritual, vs. 42-44. This is according to Scripture. Adam was created with
a natural body, adapted to an earthly state of existence; Christ, as a
life-giving spirit, has a spiritual body. As Adam was before Christ, so our
early tabernacles are before our heavenly ones. As we have borne the image
of the earthly, we shall bear the image of the heavenly, vs. 45-49. It is
freely admitted that flesh and blood, i.e. bodies organized as our now are,
are unfit for heaven. Corruption cannot inherit incorruption, morality shall
put on immortality, vs. 51-53. When this is done, the original promise that
death shall be swallowed up in victory, will be fully accomplished, v. 54.
Death, therefore, to the believer, has lost its sting, and the grave is
conquered. Death has no sting but sin; sin has no strength but from the
law; the law has no power over those who are in Christ Jesus, therefore
thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through Christ Jesus our
Lord! vs. 55-57. Seeing then that we have such a glorious hereafter, we
should be steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the
Lord, v. 58.
 366
35. But some (man) will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what
body do they come?

The discussion of the fact of the resurrection being ended, the apostle
comes to consider the manner of it. He supposes some objector to ask,
How are the dead raised up? This may mean, How can a corrupted and
disorganized body be restored to life? And the next question, With what
body do they come? may refer to the result of the process. What is to be
the nature of our future bodies? Or the latter question may be merely
explanatory of the former, so that only one point is presented. How, i.e.
with what kind of body are the dead raised? There are, however, two
distinct questions, for although the two are not connected by kai>, and, but
by the particle de> which might be merely explanatory, yet the apostle
really answers, in what follows, both questions, viz., How it is possible
for life to come out of death, and, What is to be the nature of the body
after the resurrection. The latter difficulty was the main one, and therefore
to that the most of what follows refers. The great objection in the minds of
the Corinthians to the doctrine of the resurrection was evidently the same
as that of the Sadducees. Both supposed our future bodies are to be like
our present ones. Our Lord’s answer to the Sadducees, therefore, is the
same as that which Paul gives to the Corinthian objectors. The future body
is not to be like the present. To reject a plainly-revealed and most
important doctrine on such grounds as these is wicked as well as foolish,
and therefore the apostle says in the next verse —

36. (Thou) fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.

It is not, Thou fool, but simply, Fool! an exclamation both of

disapprobation and contempt. Luke 12:20. Romans 1:22. Ephesians 5:15.
It does not, however, necessarily express any bitterness of feeling; for our
blessed Lord said to his doubting disciples, “O fools, and slow of heart to
believe all that the prophets have spoken!” Luke 24:25. It was the
senselessness of the objection that roused the apostle’s indignation. The
body cannot live again because it dies. Fool! says Paul, a seed cannot live
unless it does die. Disorganization is the necessary condition of
reorganization. If the seed remain a seed there is an end of it. But if it die, it
bringeth forth much fruit, John 12:24. The seed is as much disorganized, it
 367
as really ceases to be a seed when sown in the ground, as the body when
laid in the grave. If the one dies, the other dies. Death is not annihilation,
but disorganization; the passing from one form or mode of existence to
another. How then can the disorganization of the body in the grave be an
objection to the doctrine of a resurrection? It may be said that the apostle
does not pursue the objection; that the body is not only disorganized but
dispersed; its elements scattered over the earth, and embraced in new
combinations; whereas in the seed the germ remains, so that there is no
interruption of the organic life of the plant. To those who make this
objection our Savior’s answer is, that they err, “not knowing the power of
God.” Who knows where the principle of the organic life of the body is? It
may be in the soul, which when the time comes may unfold itself into a
new body, gathering or regathering its materials according to its own law;
just as the principle of vegetable life in the seed unfolds itself into some
gorgeous flower, gathering from surrounding nature the materials for its
new organization. The identity between the present and future body is
implied in the apostle’s illustration. But it is his object neither to assert
that identity, nor to explain its nature. The latter is a very subordinate
point. The Bible clearly teaches that our bodies hereafter are to be the
same as those which we now have; but it nowhere teaches us wherein that
sameness consists. In what sense is a sprouting acorn the same with the
full-grown oak? Not in substance, not in form, not in appearance. It is,
however, the same individual organism. The same is true of the human
body. It is the same in old age that it was in infancy. But in what sense?
The materials of which the body is composed change many times in the
course of an ordinary life, yet the body remains the same. We may rest
assured that our future bodies will be the same with those which we now
have in a high and satisfying sense, though until the time comes we may be
as little able to explain the nature of that identity as we are to tell what
constitutes the identity of the body in this life. The same body which is
sown in tears, shall be reaped in joy. To doubt the fact of the resurrection,
because we cannot understand the process, is, as the apostle says, a proof
of folly.

37. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but
bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other (grain):
 368
The first clause of this verse stands, as it were, absolutely. And as to that
which thou sowest — thou sowest not the body that shall be. That is, you
do not sow the plant, but the bare grain, i.e. the simple, naked grain — it
may be of wheat, or of some other grain. The point of the illustration is,
that what comes up is very different from that which is deposited in the
ground. You sow a seed, a plant appears. You sow a natural, corruptible
body; a spiritual, incorruptible body appears. Nature itself therefore
teaches that the objection that the future body must be like the present, is
of no force.

38. But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his
own body.

What is deposited in the earth is very different from that which springs
from it. Every seed produces its own plant. The product depends on the
will of God. It was determined at the creation, and therefore the apostle
says that God, in the continual agency of his providence, gives to each
seed its own appropriate produce, as he willed, i.e. he originally purposed.
The point of this is, if God thus gives to all the products of the earth each
its own form, why may he not determine the form in which the body is to
appear at the resurrection? You cannot infer from looking at a seed what
the plant is to be; it is very foolish, therefore, to attempt to determine
from our present bodies what is to be the nature of our bodies hereafter.

39. All flesh (is) not the same flesh: but (there is) one (kind of) flesh of men,
another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, (and) another of birds.

If even here, where the general conditions of life are the same, we see such
diversity in animal organizations, flesh and blood appearing in so many
forms, why should it be assumed that the body hereafter must be the same
cumbrous vehicle of the soul that it is now?

40. (There are) also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of
the celestial (is) one, and the (glory) of the terrestrial (is) another.

There is no limit to be set to the possible or actual modifications of matter.

We not only see it in all the diversified forms of animal and vegetable life,
 369
but in the still greater diversities of heavenly and earthly bodies. What Paul
here means by bodies celestial, is doubtful.
1. Many suppose the reference is to angels, either on the assumption that
they too have bodies, or that the apostle refers to the forms in which
they appear to men. When they become visible they must assume
some material vehicle, which was always luminous or glorious. Of the
angel who appeared at the sepulchre of Christ it is said, “His
countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow,”
Matthew 28:3. There is a great contrast between the bodies of these
celestial beings and those of men.
2. Others suppose that the reference is to the bodies of the saints in
heaven. There are many kinds of bodies here on earth, and there are
also celestial as well as terrestrial bodies. The one differing from the
other in glory.
3. The common opinion is that the apostle means what is now generally
meant by “the heavenly bodies,” viz., the sun, moon and stars. To this
it is objected that it is to make the apostle use the language of modern
astronomy.
This, however, has little force; for whatever the ancients conceived the
sun, moon and stars to be, they regarded them as bodies, and used the
word sw~ma in reference to them or to the universe. Galen, who was born
not more than sixty or seventy years after the date of this epistle, uses
nearly the same language as the apostle does. He too contrasts ta< a]nw
sw>mata (meaning the sun, moon and stars,) with ta< gh>in` a sw>mata. See
Wetstein. The common interpretation is also sustained by the context, for
the sun, moon and stars mentioned in the next verse are evidently included
in the heavenly bodies here intended.

41. (There is) one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and
another glory of the stars; for (one) star differeth from (another) star in
glory.

Not only do the heavenly bodies differ from the earthly bodies in glory,
but there is great diversity among the heavenly bodies themselves. How
different is the sun from the moon, the moon from the stars, and even one
star from another. Standing, therefore, as we do in the midst of this
 370
wonderful universe, in which we see matter in every conceivable
modification, from a clod of earth to a sunbeam, from dust to the lustre of
the human eye, how unutterably absurd is it to say that if we are to have
bodies hereafter, they must be as gross, and heavy, and as corruptible as
those which we have now.

42. So also (is) the resurrection of the dead It is sown in corruption, it is

raised in incorruption:

So also is the resurrection of the dead. That is, as the heavenly bodies
differ from the earthly bodies, and as one star differs from another star, so
the resurrection body will differ from our present body. The apostle does
not mean that as one star differs from another star in glory, so one risen
believer will differ from another. This, no doubt, is true; but it is not what
Paul here says or intimates. His object is simply to show the absurdity of
the objection founded on the assumption that the body hereafter must be
what it is here. He shows that it may be a body and yet differ as much
from what it is now as the light of the sun differs from a piece of clay. He
therefore proceeds to show wherein this difference consists. The body is
sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. The figure of the seed is
again introduced. The bodies of the saints are as seed sown in the ground,
not there to be lost or to remain; but at the appointed time, to rise in a
state the very reverse of that in which they were committed to the dust. It
is sown in corruption, i.e. it is now a corruptible body, constantly tending
to decay, subject to disease and death, and destined to entire dissolution. It
is raised in incorruption. Hereafter it will be imperishable; free from all
impurity, and incapable of decay.

43, 44. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness,

it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

The apostle contemplates the body as at the moment of interment, and

therefore these predicates are to be understood with special reference to its
condition at that time. It is the dead body that is sown in dishonor,
despoiled of the short-lived attractiveness which it had while living. It is
raised in glory, i.e. in that resplendent brightness which diffuses light and
 371
awakens admiration. It is to be fashioned like unto the glorious body of the
Son of God, Philippians 3:21. It is sown in weakness Nothing is more
absolutely powerless than a corpse — it can do nothing and it can resist
nothing. The weakness which belonged to it in life, is perfected in death. It
is raised in power. The future body will be instinct with energy, endowed,
it may be, with faculties of which we have now no conception. It is sown a
natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. This comprehends all that has
been said. A natural body, sw~ma yuciko>n , is a body of which the yuch>,
or animal life, is the animating principle; and a spiritual body sw~ma
pneumatiko>n, is a body adapted to the pneu~ma, the rational, immortal
principle of our nature. We know from experience what a natural body is.
It is a body which has essentially the same properties as those of brutes.
A natural body consists of flesh and blood; is susceptible of pain and
decay; and needs air, food, and rest. It is a mere animal body, adapted to
the conditions of an earthly existence. What a spiritual body is, we know
only from Paul’s description, and from the manifestation of Christ in his
glorified body. We know that it is incorruptible, glorious, and powerful,
adapted to the higher state of existence in heaven, and therefore not
adapted to an earthly condition. Spiritual, in this connection, does not
mean ethereal, refined, much less made of spirit, which would be a
contradiction. Nor does it mean animated by the Holy Spirit. But as sw~ma
yuciko>n is a body adapted to the yuch> or principle of animal life, the
sw~ma pneumatiko>n is a body adapted to the pneu~ma or principle of
rational life. The Bible uses these terms just as we do, without intending to
teach that the yuch> or life, is a distinct substance or subject from the
pneu~ma or rational spirit, but only that as we have certain attributes,
considered as living creatures, in common with irrational animals, so we
have now a body suited to those attributes; and, on the other hand, as we
have attributes unspeakably higher than those which belong to brutes, we
shall hereafter possess bodies adapted to those higher attributes. The Bible
recognizes in man only two subjects or distinct separable substances, the
soul and body. And this has ever been a fundamental principle of Christian
anthropology.

There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. This is a vindication

of the apparently contradictory expression, spiritual body, which
according to the letter, is tantamount to immaterial matter. If, however, it
 372
is proper to speak of sw~ma yuciko>n , a natural body, i.e. a body adapted
to the principle of animal life; it is right to speak of a sw~ma pneumatiko>n,
a spiritual body, i.e. a body adapted to the spirit. Lachmann, Ruckert, and
Tischendorf, after the ancient MSS. and versions, adopt the reading eij
e]sti, k. t. l. If there is a natural body, there is a spiritual body. Just as
certainly as we have a body adapted to our lower nature, we shall have one
adapted to our higher nature. If the one exists, so does the other.

45. And so it is written. The first man Adam was made a living soul; the
last Adam (was made) a quickening spirit.

So it is written, i.e. the Scriptures are in accordance with the preceding

representation. They represent Adam as having been created with an
animal nature, and therefore as having an animal body. Whereas, the second
Adam is a person of a far higher order. The proof with regard to the nature
of Adam does not rest exclusively on the words quoted, but on the whole
account of his creation, of which those words form a part. It is evident
from the entire history, that Adam was formed for an existence on this
earth, and therefore with a body adapted to the present state of being; in
its essential attributes not differing from those which we have inherited
from him. He was indeed created immortal. Had he not sinned, he would
not have been subject to death. For death is the wages of sin. And as Paul
elsewhere teaches, death is by sin. From what the apostle, however, here
says of the contrast between Adam and Christ; of the earthly and
perishable nature of the former as opposed to the immortal, spiritual
nature of the latter, it is plain that Adam as originally created was not, as
to his body, in that state which would fit him for his immortal existence.
After his period of probation was passed, it is to be inferred, that a change
in him would have taken place, analogous to that which is to take place in
those believers who shall be alive when Christ comes. They shall not die,
but they shall be changed. Of this change in the constitution of his body,
the tree of life was probably constituted the sacrament. For when he
sinned, he was excluded from the garden of Eden, “lest he put forth his
hand and take of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever,” Genesis 3:22.
Some change, therefore, was to take place in his body, to adapt it to live
for ever. He was made a living soul, yuch<n zw~san. He had a yuch>, and
therefore a body adapted to it. Both the Greek word yuch and the
 373
corresponding Hebrew term are frequently used for the immortal principle
of our nature — the rational soul — but they also, and perhaps most
frequently, mean life in that form which we have in common with other
animals. This idea is included in the passage quoted from Genesis. It is to
be remembered that the quotations given in the New Testament from the
Old Testament are not mere quotations, but authoritative expositions. Paul
tells us what the Spirit of God meant, when he called Adam a living soul.

The fast Adam, i.e. Christ. This was not an unusual designation for the
Messiah among the Jews, though not found in Scripture elsewhere than
here. The appropriateness of the designation is evident. Christ is the
second great head and representative man, of whom Adam is declared to
have been the type, Romans 5:14. Was made a quickening spirit. Adam
was in his distinctive character, that is, as distinguished from Christ, an
animal — a creature endowed with animal life, whereas Christ has life in
himself, and can give life to as many as he will, John 5:21, 26. This does
not of course mean that Adam had nothing more than animal life. It does
not deny that he had a rational and immortal soul. Neither does it imply
that our Lord had not, while on earth, a yuch> or principle of life in
common with us. The apostle simply contrasts the first and second Adam
as to their distinguishing characteristics. The one was a man; the other
infinitely more.

There are two questions suggested by this passage. The first is, on what
ground does the apostle assert that Christ was made a quickening spirit?
When he says, at the beginning of the verse, “So it is written,” does he
intend to appeal to the support of Scripture not only for what he says of
the nature of Adam, but also for what he says of the person of Christ? If
so, the proof cannot rest on the passage quoted, for that relates exclusively
to Adam. If the apostle intended to cite the Scriptures for both parts of the
declaration in the preceding verse, “there is a natural body, and there is a
spiritual body,” he must mean the Scriptures in express terms declare
Adam to have had a living soul, and they set forth Christ as a life-giving
Spirit. It is more commonly assumed, however, that the quotation is
limited to the first clause. ‘The Scriptures say that the first Adam “was
made a living soul;” the last Adam (we know) was made a life-giving
Spirit.’
 374

The second question is, When was Christ made a quickening spirit? The
apostle does not refer to what Christ was before his incarnation, but to
what he became. The subject of discourse is, the last Adam. When did he
become a quickening spirit? Some say at his incarnation. This is
undoubtedly true. As the incarnate Son of God he was life-giving. “It
pleased the Father that he should have life in himself,” John 5:26. That is,
that the divine and human nature should be united in his person. And in
this constitution of his person it was already determined that, although
while on earth he should have a body like our own, yet his whole person,
including ‘his true body and reasonable soul,’ should be adapted to sit at
the right hand of God. Adam was first formed for this earth, and had an
earthly body; the person of Christ was constituted in reference to his
reigning in heaven, and therefore he has a spiritual body. The apostle
argues from the nature of Adam to the nature of his body; and from the
nature of Christ to the nature of his body. This argument does not involve
the assumption that the body of Christ was here a spiritual one — for we
know that it was flesh and blood; but that such was the state to which,
from the very constitution of his person, he was destined, a spiritual body
alone could be suited to him. The last Adam, therefore, was made a
quickening spirit, by the union of the divine with the human in the
constitution of his person. Others say that it was at his resurrection; and
others, at his ascension. As to the former opinion, it is enough to say, that
no change took place at his resurrection in the nature of Christ’s body. It
was necessary in order to its satisfactory identification that it should
remain the same that it was before. He therefore not only called upon his
disciples to handle his risen body and to satisfy themselves of its identity
by probing the wounds in his hands and feet, but he also repeatedly ate
before them. He did not assume his permanent pneumatic state until his
ascension. But this did not make him a quickening spirit. It only affected
his body, which then assumed the state adapted to its condition in heaven.

46. Howbeit that (was) not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural;
and afterward that which is spiritual.

This does not mean simply that the natural body precedes the spiritual
body. But it announces, as it were, a general law. The lower precedes the
 375
higher; the imperfect the perfect. This is true in all the works of God, in
which there is a development. Adam’s earthly state was to be preparatory
to a heavenly one. The present life is like a seed time, the harvest is
hereafter. The natural comes before the spiritual; as Calvin says, we are
born before we are regenerated, we live before we rise.

47. The first man (is) of the earth, earthy: the second man (is) the Lord
from heaven.

The general principle stated in the preceding verse, that the natural
precedes the spiritual, is here illustrated by the fact that Adam came before
Christ. The first man was of the earth, i.e. formed out of the earth, and
therefore earthy. The second man is the Lord from heaven. Here the text is
doubtful. The authorities are about equally divided for and against the
reading oJ ku>riov, the Lord. The sentence is more simple if that word be
omitted. ‘The first man was from the earth; the second man was from
heaven.’ If the common text be retained, the word Lord is in apposition
with the words the second man. ‘The second man, the Lord, was from
heaven.’ This passage was used by the early heretics of the Gnostic school
to sustain their doctrine that our Lord was not really born of the Virgin
Mary, but was clothed in a body derived from heaven, in opposition to
whom the early creeds declare that he was as to his human nature
consubstantial with man, and as to his divine nature consubstantial with
God. The text, however, simply asserts the heavenly origin of Christ.
Adam was of the earth; Christ was from heaven; comp. John 3:13. Adam,
therefore, had a body suited to the earth; Christ has a body suited to
heaven.

48. As (is) the earthy, such (are) they also that are earthy; and as (is) the
heavenly, such (are) they also that are heavenly.

The earthy is of course Adam; they that are earthy are his descendants. The
heavenly is Christ; they that are heavenly are his risen people. The
descendants of Adam derive from him an earthly body like his. Those who
are Christ’s are to have a body fashioned like unto his glorious body,
Philippians 3:21.
 376
49. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the
image of the heavenly.

In this passage, instead of the future fore>somen, we shall bear, the great
majority of the oldest MSS. read the conjunctive fore>swmen, let us bear.
The context, however, so evidently demands the future, that the common
reading is preferred by almost all editors. An exhortation here would be
entirely out of place. The apostle is evidently proceeding with his
discussion. He is obviating the objection to the doctrine of the resurrection
founded on the assumption that our bodies hereafter are to be of the same
kind as those which we have here. This is not so. They are to be like the
body of Christ. As we have borne the image of Adam as to his body, we
shall bear the image of Christ as to his body. The idea that as we have
derived a corrupt nature from Adam, we derive a holy nature from Christ,
though true in itself, is altogether foreign to the connection.

50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

This I say. These words admit of three interpretations.

1. They may be understood concessively. ‘This I concede, brethren. I
admit that flesh and blood, our bodies as now organized, cannot inherit
the kingdom of God. But that is not what I teach when I preach the
doctrine of the resurrection. Our bodies are to be changed.’
2. The sense may be, ‘This is what I say, the sum of what I have said is
that flesh and blood,’ etc.
3. The words may mean, ‘This I assert, brethren. I assure you of this
fact, that flesh and blood,’ etc. In 7:29 the expression is used in this
sense. Comp. also Romans 3:8 and 1 Corinthians 10:19.

Flesh and blood means our body as now constituted, not sinful human
nature. The phrase never has this latter sense. In Hebrews 2:14, it is said,
“Inasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he (Christ) also
himself likewise took part of the same,” Matthew 16:17. Galatians 1:16.
Ephesians 6:12. It is indeed true, that our unsanctified nature, or
unrenewed man, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But that is not what
 377
the apostle is speaking about. He is speaking of the body and of its state
after the resurrection. It is of the body as now constituted that he says, it
cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, i.e. the kingdom of Christ as it is to
exist after the resurrection, Matthew 8:11. Luke 13:28; 1 Corinthians
6:9.;Galatians 5:21; 2 Timothy 4:18. The same idea is repeated in abstract
terms and as a general proposition in the next clause, neither can
corruption inherit incorruption. The mortal cannot be immortal; the
perishable imperishable. Incorruption cannot be an attribute of corruption.
Our bodies, therefore, if they are to be immortal and imperishable must be
changed. And this the apostle in the next verse announces on the authority
of a direct revelation, is actually to occur.

51. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed,

A mystery; something revealed, and which could not otherwise be known,

Matthew 13:11; 1 Corinthians 4:1, and often elsewhere. What is here
expressed by saying, I show you a mystery, is in 1 Thessalonians 4:15
expressed by saying, ‘This I say unto you by the word of the Lord,’ i.e. by
divine revelation. The revelation which Paul now declares, and to which he
calls special attention by the word, Behold! is, that all are not to die, but
all are to be changed, i.e. so changed that their corruptible body shall be
rendered incorruptible. The common text is, pa>ntev me<n ouj
koimhqhso>meqa, the negative being connected with the verb, so that the
literal sense would be, all are not to die. This is said of all whom Paul
addressed. The apostle tells them all that they are not to die. To avoid this
impossible sense, for Paul certainly did not mean to assure the Corinthians
that it had been revealed to him that none of them should die, most of the
older commentators assume in common with our translators a not unusual
trajection of the negative particle, pa>ntev ouj standing for ouj pa>ntev.
Others explain the verse thus: ‘We all — shall indeed not die (before the
resurrection) — but we shall all be changed.’ It is said this is contrary to
the context, inasmuch as being changed is something peculiar to those who
should be alive at the coming of Christ, and is not affirmed of the dead.
This, however, is contrary to the fact. Paul had said, v. 50, that flesh and
blood could not inherit the kingdom of God. All, therefore, who enter that
kingdom, whether they die before the second advent or survive the coming
 378
of Christ, must be changed. And that is the fact which Paul says had been
revealed to him. Those who died before the advent would not fail of the
blessings of Christ’s kingdom, and those who should be alive when he
came, would not be left in their corruptible bodies. Both should be
changed, and thus prepared for the heavenly state. 28 Comp. 1
Thessalonians 4:15-17. The modern commentators, both German and
English, understand the apostle as expressing the confident expectation
that he and others of that generation should survive the coming of Christ.
‘Though we (who are now alive) shall not all die, we shall all be changed.’
But
1. This is altogether unnecessary. The we all includes all believers who
had lived, were living, or ever should live. There is nothing either in the
form of expression or in the context to limit it to the men of that
generation. In the same way Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, “We
that are alive at the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them that are
asleep.” This does not imply that he expected to be alive when Christ
came. In his second Epistle to the Thessalonians he warns them against
the expectation of the speedy advent of Christ, telling them that a great
apostasy and the revelation of the Man of Sin were to occur before
that event.
2. The plenary inspiration of the sacred writers rendered them infallible in
all they taught; but it did not render them omniscient. They could not
err in what they communicated, but they might err, and doubtless did
err, as to things not included in the communications of the Spirit. The
time of the second advent was not revealed to them. They profess their
ignorance on that point. They were, therefore, as to that matter, on a
level with other men, and may have differed in regard to their private
conjectures on the subject just as others differ. It would not, in the
least, therefore, encroach on their authority as infallible teachers, if it
should be apparent that they cherished erroneous expectations with
regard to that about which they professed to know nothing. Knowing
that Christ was to come, and not knowing when he was to come, it was
perfectly natural that they should look on his advent as constantly
imminent, until it was revealed that certain events not yet
accomplished, were to occur before Christ came.
 379
But all this is very different from any didactic statement that he was to
come within a certain period. Paul might exhort Christians to wait and long
for the coming of the Lord; but he could not tell them by the word of the
Lord that he and others then living would be alive when he came. This
would not only be teaching error, but it would be claiming divine authority,
or a special revelation, for that error. It is, therefore, only at the expense of
all confidence in the inspiration of the apostle that the exposition above
mentioned can be adopted.

52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we
shall be changed.

The change in question is to be instantaneous; in a moment, literally, an

atom, i.e. in a portion of time so short as to be incapable of further
division. It is to take place at the last trump, i.e. on the last day. As the
trumpet was used for assembling the people or marshaling a host, it
became the symbol for expressing the idea of the gathering of a multitude.
So, in Matthew 24:31, Christ says, “He will send his angels with a great
sound of a trumpet; and they shall gather his elect from the four winds,
from one end of heaven to another.” Comp. Isaiah 27:13; 1 Thessalonians
4:16. This trumpet is called the last, not because several trumpets (the
Jews say seven) are to sound in succession, but because it is the last that
ever is to sound. In other words, the resurrection is to take place on the
last day. For the trumpet shall sound. This is a confirmation of the
preceding. That day shall surely come — the voice of the archangel, the
trump of God, shall certainly resound as it did from Sinai, Exodus 19:16.
And, i.e. and then, in consequence of the summons of God, the dead shall
be raised in the manner described in vs. 42, 43, incorruptible, glorious and
powerful. And we shall be changed This is in exact accordance with 1
Thessalonians 4, 15. Those who are alive when Christ comes “shall not
prevent them which are asleep.” The dead in Christ shall rise first, and
then the living shall undergo their instantaneous change. As remarked on
the preceding verse, it is not necessary to understand the apostle as
including himself and fellow believers in Corinth, when he says We shall be
changed. The connection indeed is different here from what it is there.
There he says, “We shall not all die.” If that means that the men of that
 380
generation should not all die, it is a positive assertion of what the event has
proved to be false. But here he simply says, all who are alive when Christ
comes shall be changed. If he hoped that he might be of the number there
would be nothing in that expectation inconsistent with his inspiration.
Calvin, therefore, so understands the passage. 29 Considering, however, his
express teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2:2-12 on the subject, it is far more
natural to understand him as contemplating the vast company of believers
as a whole, and saying ‘Those of us who are dead shall rise, and all who are
alive shall be changed.’

53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal (must)
put on immortality.

This is the reason why we must be changed. ‘We must all be changed, for
this corruptible must put on incorruption.’ It is impossible that corruption
should inherit incorruption. This reason applies equally to the quick and to
the dead. With regard to both classes it is true that these vile bodies must
be fashioned like unto Christ’s glorious body.

54. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this
mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the
saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

When the change above described has been accomplished, when once the
resurrection has taken place, then, according to the language of Scripture,
death shall be completely conquered. Not only shall those over whom he
had triumphed, and whom he had so long detained in the prison of the
grave, be delivered from his power, but there shall be no more death. The
passage quoted is Isaiah 25:8, “He will swallow up death in victory.” In
Hebrew the last words mean literally for ever. They are, however,
frequently translated by the LXX. as they are here rendered by the
apostle. The sense is the same. The victory over death is to be complete
and final.

55. O death, where (is) thy sting? O grave, where (is) thy victory?

The apostle places himself and his readers in presence of the Savior and of
 381
the risen dead arrayed in immortality; and in view of that majestic scene he
breaks out in these words of triumph: ‘Christ has conquered. His people
are redeemed. Death is disarmed. Hades is no more.’ Death is addressed
under the figure of an animal armed with a poisonous sting which pierces
even to the soul; for that sting is sin. The grave, or the Greek word Hades,
means, what is unseen, the invisible world, the abode of the dead in the
widest sense. It depends on the context whether the immediate reference
be to the grave, the place of departed spirits, or hell, in the modern sense
of that word. Here where the special reference is to the bodies of men and
to the delivery of them from the power of death, it is properly rendered
the grave. The only sense in which the body can be in Hades is that it is in
the grave. The apostle is not speaking of the delivery of the souls of men
from any intermediate state, but of the redemption of the body. In Hosea
13:14 God says, “O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy
destruction.” This is a literal version of the Hebrew. The Vulgate comes
near to it, Ero mors tua, O mors! Morsus tuus ero, inferne! The LXX.
depart from the figure, “Where is thy judgment (or vengeance), O death?
where is thy sting, O grave?” These are all different forms of expressing
the idea that death and the grave are completely conquered. The apostle
does not quote the prophet. He expresses an analogous idea in analogous
terms. In speaking of death as furnished with a sting, the most natural
figure is that of a scorpion. Others say that ke>ntron here means a goad,
and that death is compared to a man driving animals before him with such
an instrument. The power of a goad is as nothing to that of the sting of a
scorpion, Revelation 9:5, 6, 10, and the figure is therefore far more forcible
as commonly understood. 30

56. The sting of death (is) sin; and the strength of sin (is) the law.

The sting of death is sin; that is, death would have no power to injure us if
it were not for sin. This is true for two reasons.
1. Because if there were no sin there would be no death. Death is by sin,
Romans 5:12.
2. Because sin gives death, when it has been introduced, all its terrors. If
sin be pardoned, death is harmless. It can inflict no evil. It becomes a
mere transition from a lower to a higher state. The strength of sin is the
 382
law. This must be the law of God in its widest sense; not the Mosaic
law, which would make the declaration amount to nothing. The law is
the strength of sin for two reasons.
1. Because without law there would be no sin, Romans 4:15. The
very idea of sin is want of conformity on the part of moral
creatures to the law of God. If there be no standard to which we are
bound to be conformed, there can be no such thing as want of
conformity. Sin is the correlative, that of reason, nor of expediency,
but of law. If you take away law, men may act unreasonably, or in
a way injurious to themselves or others, but they cannot sin.
2. Because if there be no law there can be no condemnation. Sin is not
imputed where there is no law, Romans 5:13.
There is still another reason, which, though presented elsewhere by the
apostle, is foreign to this connection, and that is, that the law not only
reveals and condemns sin, but it exasperates and excites it, and thus gives it
strength, Romans 7:8-12.

57. But thanks (be) to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord
Jesus Christ.

The victory here meant is, of course, the victory over death and the grave.
Thanks be to God, who delivers us from the power of death, redeeming
even our bodies from the grave, and making us partakers of everlasting life.
This is done through Jesus Christ our Lord, i.e. our divine possessor and
absolute ruler. It is through him, and through him alone.
1. Because he has satisfied the demands of the law. It has no power to
condemn those who are clothed in his righteousness. There is no
condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, Romans 8:1. Who shall
lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth,
who is he that condemneth? Romans 8:33, 34. Christ by his death hath
destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and
delivered them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject
to bondage, Hebrews 2:14, 15. That is, in virtue of the death of Christ,
by which the demands of justice are satisfied, Satan, the great
executioner of divine justice, has no longer the right or power to detain
the people of Christ under the power of death. If, therefore, it be the
 383
law which gives sin its reality and strength, and if sin gives death its
sting, he who satisfies the law destroys the strength of sin, and
consequently the sting of death. It is thus that Christ deprives death of
all power to injure his people. It is for them disarmed and rendered as
harmless as an infant.
2. But Christ not only gives us this victory through his justifying
righteousness, but by his almighty power, he new creates the soul after
the image of God, and, what is here principally intended, he repairs all
the evils which death had inflicted. He restores us to that state, and
even to more than that state, from which sin had cast us down. He
rescues our bodies from the grave, and fashions them like unto his
glorious body, even by that power whereby he is able to subdue all
things unto himself, Philippians 3:21.
Had it not been for Christ, death would have reigned for ever over our
fallen race; but thanks be to God, Christ hath given us the victory; so that
the believer may even now say, O death, where is thy sting? O grave,
where is thy victory?

58. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always

abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor
is not in vain in the Lord.

Such being the truth and importance of the doctrine of the resurrection,
Christians should be firm in their adherence to it, not suffering themselves
to be moved by the specious objections of philosophy falsely so called.
They should remember that if the dead rise not, then is Christ not risen;
and if Christ be not risen, their faith is vain, and they are yet in the power
of sin. But as Christ has risen, and as his resurrection illustrates and
renders certain that of his people, what more natural and proper than that
they should abound in the work of the Lord. The work of the Lord is either
that work in which the Lord is engaged, the destruction of death by
destroying sin; or, it is the work which the Lord has given us to do, as
parents and children, as husbands and wives, as ministers and Christians.
In this work we should abound, i.e. be abundant. As Paul says, 2
Corinthians 11:23, “In labors more abundant.” Forasmuch as ye know that
your labor is not in vain in the Lord. This with Paul was more than faith; it
 384
was knowledge. He knew that labor in the work of the Lord would not be
in vain. The reward secured for it by the grace of God and merit of Christ
is participation of the glories of a blessed resurrection.
 385

CHAPTER XVI.
Treats,
1. Of the collection to be made for the saints in Jerusalem, vs. 1-9.
2. Of Timothy and Apollos, whom the apostle commends to the confidence
of the Corinthians, vs. 10-14.
3. The third paragraph contains exhortations and greetings, vs. 15-20.
4. The last paragraph is the salutation written with Paul’s own hand, vs.
21-24.

CONCERNING THE COLLECTION

FOR THE SAINTS AT JERUSALEM.

For some reason not now to be certainly ascertained, poverty prevailed in

Jerusalem among the believers more than in any other part of the church.
Almost all the special exhortations to provide for the poor, in Paul’s
epistles, have primary reference to the poor in Jerusalem. He had exhorted
the churches of Galatia to make a collection for their relief; and then those
of Macedonia, and he now addresses the Corinthians on the subject. It is a
very common opinion that the poverty of the Christians in Jerusalem
arose from the community of goods introduced among them at the
beginning; an error which arose from an excess of love over knowledge. In
thirty years that mistake may have produced its legitimate effects.
Perfection in one thing requires perfection in all. Perfect equality in goods
requires perfect freedom from selfishness and indolence. The collection
made by the Syrian churches, as recorded in Acts 11:29, was in
consequence of the death the Christian prophet Agablus warned his
brethren was to come on all the world. Whatever may have been the cause,
the fact is certain that the saints in Jerusalem stood in special need of the
assistance of their richer brethren. Paul, therefore, undervalued and
suspected as he was by the Jewish Christians, labored assiduously in their
behalf. He exhorts the Corinthians to adopt the same arrangements in
reference to this matter, which he had established in the churches of
Galatia. A contribution was to be made on the Lord’s day every week,
proportioned to their resources, so that the collection might be ready when
he came, vs. 1, 2. He would either send it by persons whom they might
 386
approve to Jerusalem, or if the sum were of sufficient magnitude to make it
worth while, he would himself accompany their messengers, vs. 3, 4. He
announces his purpose to visit the Corinthians after having passed over
Macedonia, and perhaps to pass the winter with them. His prospects of
usefulness in Ephesus would detain him in that city until Pentecost, vs.
5-9.

As to Timothy and Apollos he exhorts them to treat the former in such a

manner that he might be free from fear among them, for he was worthy of
their confidence, vs. 10, 11. Of the latter he says he had urged him to go to
Corinth with the other brethren, but that he was unwilling to do so then,
but would go when a suitable occasion offered, vs. 12-14. He exhorts them
to submission to the household of Stephanas, and to every one who was
laboring in the good cause, vs. 15, 16. He expresses his gratification in
seeing the brethren from Corinth, and sends salutations from those around
him to the Christians in Achaia, vs. 17-20. The conclusion of the epistle
was written with his own hand as an authentification of the whole, vs.
21-24.

1. Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the
churches of Galatia, even so do ye.

But concerning the collection which is for the saints. What saints were
intended was already known to the Corinthians. Instead of for the saints,
in Romans 15:26 we have the more definite expression, “for the poor of
the saints who are in Jerusalem,” in whose behalf, he tells the Romans,
Macedonia and Achaia had made a contribution. The Greek word logi>a in
the sense of sullogh>, collection, is only found in this passage. As I have
given orders, i.e. as I arranged or ordered. This is the language of authority.
For although these contributions were voluntary, and were required to be
made cheerfully, 2 Corinthians 9:7, yet they were a duty, and therefore
both the collection itself, and the mode in which it should be accomplished,
were proper subjects for apostolic direction. In the epistle to the Galatians
there is no mention of this collection. It was probably ordered when Paul
visited those churches. So do ye, i.e. adopt the same plan as to the mode of
making the collection. What that was, is stated in the following verse.
 387
2. Upon the first (day) of the week let every one of you lay by him in store,
as (God) hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

The collection was to be made every Lord’s day; every one was to
contribute; and the contributions were to be in proportion to the means of
the giver. These are the three principles which the apostle had established
among the churches of Galatia, and which he urged the Corinthians to
adopt. Upon the first day of the week, literally, upon one of the Sabbath,
according to the Jewish method of designating the days of the week. The
Hebrew word, sabbath (rest), is used not only in the singular, but also in
the plural form, both for the seventh day, and for the whole week, Luke
18:12. That the first day of the week was, by divine appointment, made
the sacred day for Christians, may be inferred.
1. From the distinction put upon that day by our Lord himself, John
20:19, 26.
2. From the greatness of the event which its observance was intended to
commemorate. The sanctification of the seventh day of the week was
intended to keep in mind the great truth of the creation of the world, on
which the whole system of revealed religion was founded; and as
Christianity is founded on the resurrection of Christ, the day on which
Christ rose became for that reason the Christian Sabbath.
3. From its being called by the apostle John the Lord’s day, i.e. the day
set apart for the service of the Lord, Revelation 1:10.
4. From the evidence that it was from the beginning the day on which
Christians assembled for worship, Acts 20:7.
5. From the uniform practice of the whole church, which practice, having
the clear evidence of apostolic sanction, is authoritative.

Let every one of you. It was an important feature of these apostolic

arrangements, that the contributions were not to be confined to any one
class of the people. The same amount might perhaps have been raised from
the rich few. But this would not have answered one important end which
the apostle had in view. It was the religious effect which these gifts were
to produce in promoting Christian fellowship, in evincing the truth and
power of the gospel, and in calling forth gratitude and praise to God, even
more than the relief of the temporal necessities of the poor, that Paul
 388
desired to see accomplished, 2 Corinthians 9:12-14. Every one was to lay
by himself, i.e. most modern commentators say, at home, paræ eJautw~|.
Compare pro<v eJauto>n, in Luke 24:12; see also John 20:10. The direction
then is that every one should, on the first day of the week, lay aside at
home whatever he was able to give, thus treasuring up his contribution. To
this interpretation it may be objected that the whole expression is thus
obscure and awkward. ‘Let every one at home place, treasuring up what he
has to give.’ The words do not mean to lay by at home, but to lay by
himself. The direction is nothing more definite than, let him place by
himself, i.e. let him take to himself what he means to give. What he was to
do with it, or where he was to deposit it, is not expressed. The word
Qhsauri>zwn means putting into the treasury, or hoarding up, and is
perfectly consistent with the assumption that the place of deposit was
some common treasury, and not every man’s own house.
2. If Paul directed this money to be laid up at home, why was the first day
of the week selected? It is evident that the first day must have offered
some special facility for doing what is here enjoined. The only reason that
can be assigned for requiring the thing to be done on the first day of the
week, is, that on that day the Christians were accustomed to meet, and
what each one had laid aside from his weekly gains could be treasured up,
i.e. put into the common treasury of the church.
3. The end which the apostle desired to accomplish could not otherwise
have been effected. He wished that there might be no collections when he
came. But if every man had his money laid by at home, the collection
would be still to be made. The probability is, therefore, Paul intended to
direct the Corinthians to make a collection every Lord’s day for the poor,
when they met for worship. As God hath prospered him; literally,
whatever has gone well with him. He was to lay aside what by his success
in business he was able to give. This is another principle which the apostle
would have Christians to act upon. Their contribution should be in
proportion to their means.

3. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by (your) letters, them

will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

Paul was not to receive the money himself. It was to be given to men
selected and approved by the Corinthians, whom Paul promised to send,
 389
furnished with letters from himself, to Jerusalem. The words dij
ejpistolw~n, with letters, are not to be connected with what precedes,
“approved by your letters,” but with what follows, “I will send with
letters.” Otherwise there would have been no need of Paul’s sending them.
i.e. the persons approved by the Corinthians. The people were to collect
the money; it was to be committed to men of their own selection; but Paul,
as the author of the collection, was to send it to Jerusalem. If the apostle
deemed it wise to place himself above suspicion, and to avoid giving even
the most malicious the opportunity of calling his integrity in question, as
is intimated here, and expressly stated in 2 Corinthians 8:19, 20, it must be
wise for other men and ministers to act with equal caution. If called to
disburse the money of others or of the church, let that money, if possible,
be in some other custody than their own, that others may know what is
done with it. Thus at least Paul acted.

4. And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.

And if it is deserving of my going; that is, if the collection be of an amount

to make it proper for the also to go with it to Jerusalem, your messengers
shall go with me. According to Acts 19:21, Paul purposed, after visiting
Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem. But whether he would go at the
time the contribution of the Corinthians was sent, depended on its amount.
He would not modify his plans for the sake of having charge of the
distribution of an inconsiderable sum.

5. Now I will come unto you, when I shall pass through Macedonia: for I
do pass through Macedonia.

It appears from 2 Corinthians 1:15, 16, that Paul’s original plan was to go
directly from Ephesus to Corinth, and from there into Macedonia, and
then back again to Corinth, and thence to Jerusalem. He now informs them
that he would go to Macedonia before going to Corinth. So eager were the
false teachers in Corinth to find grounds of complaint against him, that
they made this change of plan a grievous offense, and a proof that he was
not to be depended upon either as to his purposes or his doctrine. This is
apparent from the vindication of himself in the second Epistle. For I do
pass through Macedonia; not, I am passing; the present tense expresses
 390
the purpose of the apostle as settled. The mistake as to the force of the
tense here, probably led transcribers to date this epistle from Philippi;
whereas, it is clear from v. 8, that it was written from Ephesus.

6. And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with you, that ye may
bring me on my journey whithersoever I go.

‘I pass through Macedonia, but I will abide with you.’ His visit to the
former was to be transient, to the latter prolonged. In the second Epistle he
speaks of himself as in Macedonia, and in Acts 20:2, 3, we find that he left
Ephesus after the uproar in that city and went to Macedonia, and thence
to Greece, where he abode three months. The plan here sketched was
therefore executed. He would remain with them for the winter, he says, in
order that they might help him forward on his journey, i.e. attend him on
his way, which was the customary mark of respect. Paul wished to receive
this courtesy from the Corinthians rather than from others, as his affection
for them, notwithstanding the trouble and anxiety they occasioned him
was, as is evident from his second Epistle, peculiarly strong.

7. For I will not see you now by the way; but I trust to tarry a while with
you, if the Lord permit.

By some a]rti, now, is connected with qe>lw, I will. ‘I do not now wish, as
I formerly intended.’ Its natural connection is with ijdei~n , to see. ‘I do not
wish to see you now in passing.’”But I hope;” instead of de> , but, the older
MSS. read ga>r; “for I hope to tarry with you.” It seems that the
intelligence which Paul received in Ephesus concerning the disorders in
Corinth, determined him to write them this letter, instead of making them a
passing visit, and to defer his visit for some months in order that his letter
might have time to produce its effect. The same reason determined him,
when he did go to Corinth, to remain there some time, that he might correct
the abuses which had sprung up in his absence. The second Epistle shows
how anxious he was about the effect of this letter, and how overjoyed he
was when Titus brought him the intelligence that it had brought the people
to repentance. If the Lord permit, (ejpitre>ph|) or, ‘If the Lord shall have
permitted’ (ejpitre>yh| ). The latter reading is adopted by the later editors.
The Lord is Christ, whom Paul recognized as ordering all events, and
 391
whose guidance he sought and always submitted to.

8, 9. But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. For a great door and
effectual is opened unto me, and (there are) many adversaries.

There were two reasons, therefore, for his remaining at Ephesus, his
abundant opportunities of usefulness, and the necessity of withstanding
the adversaries of the gospel. Paul’s plan was to spend the spring at
Ephesus, the summer in Macedonia, and the winter in Corinth. The
Pentecost of the following year he spent in Jerusalem. He could not leave
Ephesus soon, for, he says, a great and effectual door is opened to me. A
door is a way of entrance, and figuratively an opportunity of entering into
the possession of the convictions and hearts of men. A great door was
opened to the apostle, he had a wide field of usefulness. The epithet
effectual does not agree with the figure, but the meaning is plain — the
opportunities were such as could be turned to good effect. And there are
many adversaries. The opponents of the gospel varied very much in
character in different places. Those in Ephesus were principally men
interested in the worship of Diana. The pressure of the heathen seems to
have driven the Jews and Christians to make common cause, Acts 19:22.
Whereas, in Corinth, Paul’s most bitter opponents were Judaizers. The
presence of such violent adversaries rendered the personal support of the
apostle more necessary to the church.

10. Now if Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear: for
he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also (do.)

In Acts 19:22, we read that Paul “sent into Macedonia two of those who
ministered to him, Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia
for a season.” Timothy, therefore, at this time, was traveling through
Macedonia, and expected to reach Corinth, whither the apostle had sent
him; see 4:17. Besides this mission of Timothy, there was another some
time later, consisting of Titus and other brethren, who were sent to learn
the effect produced by this letter; and whose return the apostle so
anxiously awaited, 2 Corinthians 2:12, 13. Paul requests the Corinthians so
to receive Timothy that he might be there without fear. It was not fear of
personal violence, but the fear of not being regarded with respect and
 392
confidence. The reason by which he enforces his request shows the nature
of the evil which he apprehended, for he worketh the work of the Lord. If
they would recognize this, Timothy would be satisfied. The work of the
Lord, as in 15:58, may mean either that work in which the Lord himself is
engaged; or that which he has prescribed. As I also do. A comprehensive
commendation. Timothy preached the same gospel that Paul preached; and
with like assiduity and fidelity.

11. Let no man therefore despise him: but conduct him forth in peace, that
he may come unto me: for I look for him with the brethren.

Therefore, i.e. because he works the work of the Lord, he is entitled to

respect, and ought not to be despised. Perhaps it was Timothy’s youth
that made the apostle specially solicitous on this account, 1 Timothy 4:12.
But conduct him forth in peace; i.e. attend him on his journey in a friendly
manner. That he may come to me. It was not Paul’s wish that Timothy
should remain in Corinth; but after having executed his commission, 4:17,
he was to return to the apostle. He did thus return, and was with Paul
when he wrote the second Epistle, 2 Corinthians 1:11 expect him with the
brethren, i.e. the brethren whom Paul had appointed as Timothy’s
traveling companions. It is rare in the New Testament that we read of any
one going on a missionary tour alone.

12. As touching (oar) brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto
you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he
will come when he shall have convenient time.

Either the Corinthians, among whom Apollos had already labored, had
requested Paul to send him to them again; or for some other reason, the
apostle earnestly wished that he would accompany the brethren from
Corinth, who were to carry this epistle back with them; see v. 17. It
appears from this verse that Apollos was not under Paul’s authority. No
reason is given for his declining to go to Corinth but that he was not
willing. Why he was not willing is matter of conjecture. Many suppose it
was because his name had been mixed up with the party strifes which
disturbed the church there, 1:12. I greatly desired him; or, I often exhorted
him, that he would come, etc. i{na does not here mean, in order that, but
 393
indicates the purport of the request.

13, 14. Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. Let all
your things be done with charity.

These concise exhortations form a fitting close to the epistle; each being
adapted to the peculiar circumstances of the Corinthians, though of course
applicable to all Christians in their conflicts with the world.
1. He exhorts them to watch, i.e. to be wakeful, constantly on the alert,
that their spiritual enemies might not gain advantage over them before
they were aware of their danger.
2. Beset as they were with false teachers, who handled deceitfully the
word of God, 2 Corinthians 4:2, he exhorts them to stand fast in the
faith. Do not consider every point of doctrine an open question.
Matters of faith, doctrines for which you have a clear revelation of
God, such for example as the doctrine of the resurrection, are to be
considered settled, and, as among Christians, no longer matters of
dispute. There are doctrines embraced in the creeds of all orthodox
churches, so clearly taught in Scripture, that it is not only useless, but
hurtful, to be always calling them into question.
3. Quit you like men. The circumstances of the Corinthians called for great
courage. They had to withstand the contempt of the learned, and the
persecutions of the powerful.
4. Be strong Not only courage, but strength, was needed to withstand
their enemies, and to bear up under the trials which were to come upon
them.
5. Let all your affairs be conducted in love, i.e. let love prevail, in your
hearts, in your families, in your assemblies. The preceding parts of the
epistle show how much need there was for this exhortation; as the
church was rent with factions, and even the Lord’s supper, every
where else a feast of love, had become in Corinth a fountain of
bitterness.

15, 16. I beseech you, brethren, [ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is
the first-fruits of Achaia, and (that) they have addicted themselves to the
 394
ministry of the saints,] that ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every
one that helpeth with (us,) and laboreth.

The family of Stephanas was the first family in Achaia that embraced the
gospel. In Romans 16:5, Epenetus, according to the common text, is said to
have been the first-fruits of Achaia; but there the true reading is Asia; so
that there is no conflict between the two passages. Of the family of
Stephanas it is said, that they addicted themselves to the ministering of the
saints, i.e. devoted themselves to the service of believers. The expression
does not necessarily involve the idea of any official service. The
exhortation is, that ye also submit yourselves to such. ‘As they serve you,
do you serve them.’ Nothing is more natural than submission to the good.
And to every one that helpeth with (such), and laboreth. This may mean,
submit yourselves to every one who co-operates with such persons; i.e. to
all who in like manner are addicted to the service of believers. Those who
serve, should be served.

17. I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for
that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.

These were members of the church in Corinth, who visited Ephesus

probably for the express purpose of seeing the apostle, and of consulting
him on the condition of the church. They were probably the bearers of the
letter from the Corinthians to Paul, to which he alludes in 7:1. The reason
why he rejoiced in their presence was, that they supplied what was lacking
on the part of the Corinthians; or rather, the want of you (to< uJme>teron
uJote>rhma; uJme>teron being objective, as in 15:31.) The presence of these
brethren made up to the apostle, in a measure, the absence of the
Corinthians. Another explanation is, ‘they have done what you failed to
do,’ i.e. informed the of the true state of things in Corinth. The former
view of the meaning is the common one, and is more in keeping with the
tone of the passage, which is affectionate and conciliatory. This too is
confirmed by what follows.

18. For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge ye
them that are such.
 395
For, i.e. They have supplied your place, for their presence has had the
same effect as would have followed from our being together. It has
refreshed me, and it has had a corresponding effect on you. ‘To them,’ as
Meyer and others explain it, ‘you owe whatever in my letter serves to
refresh you.’ Others think that the apostle refers to the effect of the return
of these brethren to Corinth, and the assurances they would carry with
them of the apostle’s love. Or, Paul may mean, that what refreshed him,
must also gratify them. They would rejoice in his joy. However
understood, it is one of the examples of urbanity with which this apostle’s
writings abound. Therefore acknowledge them that are such, i.e. recognize
and appreciate them properly.

19. The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much
in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

Asia here means proconsular Asia, of which Ephesus was the capital, and
which included the seven apocalyptic churches. To salute, in a general
sense, is to wish safety to; in a Christian sense, it is to wish salvation to
any one. This was included in the Hebrew formula of salutation, “Peace be
with you,” which passed into the service of Christians. To salute any one
in the Lord, is to salute him as a Christian and in a Christian manner. It is
to salute him because he is in the Lord, and in a way acceptable to the
Lord. Aquila and Priscilla, when driven from Rome, as mentioned in Acts
18:2, settled in Corinth. They accompanied the apostle to Ephesus, and
remained there, Acts 18:18. The church which is in their house, i.e. the
company of Christians which meet in their house. As the same expression
is used Romans 16:5, in connection with their names, it is probable that
both at Rome and Ephesus, they opened their house as a regular place of
meeting for Christians. Their occupation as tent-makers probably required
spacious apartments, suited for the purpose of such assemblies.

20. All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with a holy kiss.

As all the brethren in this verse are distinguished from the church in the
house of Aquila and Priscilla, mentioned in v. 19, it may be inferred that
only a portion, and probably a small portion of the Christians of Ephesus
were accustomed to meet in that place. The apostle exhorts them to greet
 396
one another with a holy kiss, Romans 16:16; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1
Thessalonians 5:26. This was the conventional token of Christian
affection. In the East the kiss was a sign either of friendship among equals,
or of reverence and submission on the part of an inferior. The people
kissed the images of their gods, and the hands of princes. In the early
church, the custom was for Christians when they met to kiss; and in their
assemblies, especially after the Lord’s supper, this token of Christian
brotherhood was interchanged. Paul seems here to request, that when his
letter was publicly read, the members of the church would give to each
other this pledge of mutual forgiveness and love.

21. The salutation of (me) Paul with mine own hand.

As Paul commonly wrote by an amanuensis, he was accustomed to write

with his own hand the concluding sentences of his epistle as an
authentication of them, Colossians 4:18; 2 Thessalonians 3:17. He remarks
in Galatians 6:11, on his having written that epistle with his own hand as
something unusual, and as indicating a peculiar stress of feeling.

22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema. Maran
atha.

This and what follows is what Paul himself wrote. They are words which
need no explanation. They carry with them their awful import to every
heart. If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ. If our Lord be “God over
all and blessed for ever,” want of love to him is the violation of our whole
duty. If he be not only truly God, but God manifested in the flesh for our
salvation; if he unites in himself all divine and all human excellence; if he
has so loved us as to unite our nature to his own, and to humble himself
and become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, that we might
not perish, but have everlasting life; then our own hearts must assent to
the justness of the malediction pronounced even against ourselves, if we do
not love him. We must feel that in that case we deserve to be analhema.
Nay, we thereby are a thing accursed; we are an object of execration and
loathing to all holy beings by the same necessity that holiness is opposed
to sin. Maran atha are two Aramaean words signifying “The Lord,” or
“our Lord comes.” It is a solemn warning. The Lord, whom men refuse to
 397
recognize and love, is about to come in the glory of this Father and with all
his holy angels, to take vengeance on those who know not God, and who
obey not the gospel. So deeply were the apostles impressed with the
divinity of Christ, so fully were they convinced that Jesus was God
manifest in the flesh, that the refusal or inability to recognize him as such,
seemed to them a mark of reprobation. If this truth be hid, they say, it is
hid to them that are lost, 2 Corinthians 4:3-6.

23. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (be) with you.

As to be anathema from Christ, to be the subject of his curse, is everlasting

perdition; so his favor is eternal life. “May his love be with you,” is a
prayer for all good.

24. My love (be) with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.

“My love in Christ” is my Christian love. Paul in conclusion assures them

all, all the believers in Corinth, even those whom he had been called upon
to reprove, of his sincere love.
 398

FOOTNOTES

1. Several monographs, proceeding from German scholars are devoted to

the description and history of Corinth: Wilchen’s “Rerum
Corinthiarum specimen ad illustrationem utriusque Epistolae Paulinte.”
1747. Barth’s “Corinthiorum Commercia et Mercaturae particula.”
Berlin, 1814. A very interesting chapter in Conybeare and Howson’s
Life and Epistles of Paul is devoted to this subject. Vol. 1: ch. 12. See
also Winer’s Real Wörterbuch, and Arnold’s Epistles of Paul to the
Corinthians.
2. Instead of shmeio~n, a sign, the MSS., A. B. C. D. E. F. G., besides
many others of later date, read shmei~a, signs, which almost all the
modern editors adopt.
3. The common text here is tou~ eijde>nai ti<, The tou~ is omitted in the
MSS. A, B. C. D. E. F. G. The rending adopted in the recent editions is
ti< eijde>nai.
4. Instead of sarkikoi~v, unto carnal, Griesbach, Tischendorf and others
read sarki>noiv, to those made of flesh, comp. 2 Corinthians 3:3. The
latter term, used in a moral sense, would be stronger than the former, as
indicating the very nature as carnal. In all the places in the New
Testament where the form sa>rkinov appeals, except in 2 Corinthians
3:3, the reading is doubtful. Romans 7:14; Hebrews 7:16, and here.
5. Instead af the future ejxegerei~, will raise up, Lachmann and
Tischendorf after A. D. read ejxegei>rei, he raises up. Meyer after B.
67, prefers ejxh>geire he raised up. According to this last reading the
resurrection of believers is represented as involved in that of Christ. As
they died when he died, so they rose when he rose. The common text
however is the best supported and gives a good sense.
6. The last clause of this verse is omitted by all the modern editors from
Griesbach down. They are not found in the MSS. A. B. C. D. E. F. G.,
nor in several of the ancient versions.
7. Instead of ojfeilome>nhn eu]noian of the received text, A. B. C. D. E.
F. G. have the simpler reading, ojfeilh>n, which most editors adopt.
 399
The same authorities omit the words th|~ nhstei>a| kai>, in the latter part
of the passage.
8. The MSS., A.B.C.D.E.E.G., read oJ ku>riov with ejme>rise, and oJ qeo>v,
with keklh|ken.
9. Instead of suneidh>sei the MSS., A. B. 17, 46, and the Coptic,
Ethiopic and Syrian versions read sunhqei>a, which reading is adopted
by Lachmann and Tischendorf. The meaning would then be ‘through
custom of an idol,’ i.e. from being long accustomed to believe that there
were such beings. The great weight of authority, however, is in favor of
the common reading.
10. The MS. A. B., the great majority of the ancient versions and many of
the Fathers put eleu>qerov before ajpo>stolov, which is the natural
order of the words, and which, after Griesbach, has been adopted by
almost all editors.
11. The question is discussed by Neander, in his Planting of the Church, p
554; by Winer, in Real Wörterbuch, under the head of Jacobus; by
Prof. Schaf, who has devoted to it a volume; and by many other
writers, ancient and modern.
12. The common text is th~v ejlpi>dov aujtou~ mete>cein ejp ’ ejlpi>di.
Griesbach Lachmann, Schohz and Tischendorf all read ejp ’ elipidi
tou~ mete>cein, on the authority of the MSS. A. B. C.
13. In reference to this mode of expounding the passage, Calvin says:
Nequc etiam quasi velit allegorice exponere praeceptum illud:
quemadmodum nonnulli vertiginosi spiritus occasionem hinc arripiunt
omnia ad allegorias transferendi: ita ex canibus faciunt homines, ex
arboribus angelos, et totam Scripturam ludendo pervertunt.
14. The MSS. A. C. D. E. F. G. all read ejbapiqhsan were baptized,
instead of ejbapti>santo, allowed themselves to be baptized; and yet
the majority of editors prefer the latter reading as the more difficult.
15. Fuit (ille puteus Numbers 21:16) sicut petra, sicut alveus apum et
globosus, et volutavit, etc., et ivit cum ipsis in itineribus ipsorum.
Bammidhbar. R S. 1.
16. Instead of Cristo>n the MSS. B. C., and the Coptic and Ethiopic
versions read ku>rion. The MS. A. has qeo>n. The common text is
 400
sustained by the MSS. D. E. F. G. H. I. K., by the Syriac, Vulgate, the
old Latin and Sahidic versions, and by Chrysostom and other Fathers.
It is retained, therefore, by the majority of editors. As the more
difficult reading it is the more likely to be the original one. The
temptation was strong to change cristo>n into ku>rion, but no one
would be disposed to put the former word for the latter.
17. The common Text here reads paragge>llwn oujk ejpainw~. Lachmann
and Tischendorf read paragge>llw oujk ejpainw~n on the authority of
the Mss. A. C. F. G. and others of later date, and the Syriac, Vulgate,
and Ethiopic versions. The common reading is preferred by the
majority of editors.
18. Haec communicatio corporis Christi, quam nobis in coena exhiberi dico
nec localem praesentiam, nec Christi descensum, nec infinitam
extensionem, nec aliud quicquam tale flagitat.... Locum non mutat, ut
nobis adsit, sed e coelo praesentem in nos carnis snae virtutem
transmittat.
19. The MSS. A. B. C. omit klw>menon Griesbach questioned its
genuineness, Lachmann and Tischendorf reject it.
20. The word ajnaxi>wv, unworthily, is omitted by the MSS. A. C., and is
rejected by Lachmann and Tischendorf. If discarded, the sense of the
passage is either, ‘The eater and drinker, i.e. he who eats and drinks at
the Lord’s table as at an ordinary meal, eats judgment to himself;’ or,
‘He that eats not discerning the Lord’s body, eats judgment to
himself.’ The common text has in its support the majority of ancient
MSS., and is followed by most editors.
21. BENGEL ’S remark on this clause is: kri>ma sine articulo judicinm
aliquod, morbum, mortemve corporis, ut qui Domini corpus non
discernunt, corpore suo luant. Non dicit To to< kata>krima,
condemnationem.
22. The common text is o[ti, the MSS. A. C. D. E. F. I., and many of the
versions and Fathers have o[ti o[te (that when), which reading is
adopted by Lachmann, Scholz, and Tischendorf. The construction is
then irregular.
23. It may be remarked in passing that bapti>zesqai ejn pneu>mati cannot
mean to be immersed in the Spirit, any more than bapti>zesqai u[dati
 401
Luke 3:16, Acts 1:5, can by possibility mean to be immersed in water.
24. CALVIN says, Mysteria et res occultas, ideoque nullius utillitatis.
Mysteria hic Chrysostomus accepit honorifice, pro eximiis Dei
revelationibus: ego vero in malam partem pro aenigmatibus obscuris et
involutis, quasi diceret, loquitur quod nemo percipiat. Calvin’s view of
the gift of tongues seems to have been very little higher than that of
some of the moderns.
25. Acsi diccret: Non potest homo dare citharae aut tibiae animam: vocem
tamen affingit ita temperatam, ut discerni qucat; quam igitur absurdum
est homines ipsos intelligentiae praeditos confusum nescio quid
sonare? — Calvin. This would seem to mean that the speaker with
tongues uttered a confused noise, with no more meaning in it than
thrumming on a harp.
26. CALVIN says, Sensus planus est. Si ergo idiomate mihi ignoto preces
concipiam, ac spiritus mihi verba suppeditet: ipse quidem spiritus qui
linguam meam gubernat, orabit; sed mens mea vel alibi vagabitur, vel
saltem non erit orationis particeps. This implies, that the gift of
tongues, at least when disjoined from the gift of interpretation, was the
power to speak in a lauguage which the speaker himself did not at the
time understand. Accordingly, just before he had asked, Si donum
linguae ab intelligentia separetur, ita ut qui pronuntiat, sit ipse sibi
barbarus, quid proficiet sic balbutiendo? Yet Calvin himself regarded
this as ridiculous. Quam ridiculum fuisset, linguam hominis Romani
formari Dei Spiritu ad pronuntiandas voces Graecas, quae loquenti
essent prorsus ignotae: qualiter psittaci, et picae, et corvi humanas
voces fingere docentur? It is very certain, however, that the gift of
tongues was possessed by those who had not the gift of interpretation,
and yet, even in those cases, it was edifying to the speaker. It therefore
follows, that this view of the nature of the gift must be erroneous.
Those speaking with tongues were not parrots or ravens. The
expression in the text, my understanding is unfruitful, consequently
cannot mean, “I do not myself understand what I say”
27. This view of the subject supposes the speakers with tongues to have
been in a state somewhat analogous to that of somnambulists; whose
spiritual nature is in activity, but their ordinary intellectual
consciousness is suspended, so that when they are recovered, they do
 402
not remember any thing they said or did when in their somnambulistic
condition.
28. The difficulty, however, attending the common text, has given rise to a
great variety of readings in the MSS. and versions. A. C. F. G. have
pa>ntev me<n koimhqhso>meqa, ouj pa>ntev de< ajllaghso>meqa, we
shall indeed all die, but we shall not all be changed. D. and the Vulgate
have: pa>ntev me<n ajnasthso>meqa, ou< pa>ntev de< ajllaghso>meqa, we
shall all rise, but we shall not all be changed. There are several less
important variations. These are all explained as attempts on the part of
transcribers to escape making the apostle say that the Christians of
that generation were not to die. But as the common text does not make
him say that, there is no necessity for departing from it.
29. Quum autem dicit, Nos immutabimur in eorum numero se
comprehendit qui victuri sunt ad Christi adventum; quoniam jam erant
postrema tempora, expectandus fuit dies ille in singulas horas.
30. The MSS. B. D, E. F. G., and most of the versions, read, pou~ sou~,
qa>nate, to< ke>ntron; pou~ sou~ qa>nate, to< ni~kov; where, O death, is
thy sting? where, O death, thy victory? A reading which Tischendorf
and other modern editors have adopted.
PUBLISHERS NOTES
CONTACTING AGES S OFTWARE
For more information regarding the AGES Digital Library, whether it be
about pricing structure, trades for labor or books, current listings, policies
— or if you wish to offer suggestions — please write us at…
AGES SOFTWARE • PO B OX 1926 • ALBANY OR 97321-0509
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE O F THE DIGITAL LIBRARY ?
The Library consists of books and other literature of enduring value to the
Christian community. Our goal since the beginning has been to “make the
words of the wise available to all —inexpensively.” We have had in mind
the student, teacher, pastor, missionary, evangelist and church worker who
needs a high quality reference library, one that is portable, practical and
low in cost.
O N WHAT BASIS WERE THEY S ELECTED ?
Volumes in the Library have been added based on several criteria:
usefulness, user request, breadth of content or reputation. This has meant
that the collection is eclectic and may include works that contain positions
with which we at AGES Software do not agree. This paradox is consistent
with our design, however: any useful library consists of books on a wide
variety of subjects and sometimes includes information for reference
purposes only. The AGES Digital Library hopefully will reflect — as its
components are released — the necessary breadth and depth for a solid
personal library.
HOW WERE THESE VOLUMES PREPARED?
Most of the books and documents have been scanned or typed from works
that have entered the public domain. Some have been reproduced by
special arrangement with the current publisher or holder of the copyright.
They have been put in a format that can be readily used by computer users
everywhere.
ARE THESE EXACT COPIES O F THE O RIGINAL WORKS ?
Usually not. In the process of preparing the Library, we at AGES
Software have taken the liberty to make certain edits to the text. As we
discovered errors in spelling, certain archaic forms, typographical mistakes
or omissions in the original we have done our best to correct them. Our
intention has been to remove anything that might obscure the meaning or
otherwise detract from the usefulness of a book for the modern reader. We
have, however, attempted to retain the essential content and thoughts of
the original — even when we found ourselves in disagreement.
WHY IS THE DIGITAL LIBRARY COPYRIGHTED?
While much of the content is in the public domain, the transcription, form
and edits of these works took many people many hours to accomplish. We
ask each purchaser to respect this labor and refrain from giving away
copies of this or any volume of the Library without written permission
from AGES Software. Our policy, however, is to work with each
individual or organization to see that the price of Digital Library volumes
not be a hindrance in their reaching the hands of those who need them. If
price is an obstacle, please contact us at the address above and present
your situation.